Inayat Ullah vs State S — 2025 MLD 934 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Inayat Ullah VS State S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations recorded in a bail order are purely tentative in nature and should in no way prejudice an independent mind of Trial Court during the course of trial. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 934 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Inayat Ullah VS State S. 497(2)---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 11-F(2)---Explosive Substances act (VI of 1908), S. 5---act of terrorism, possession of explosive substance without lawful justification---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Prosecution case was that explosive substance, non-electric detonators, safety fuse wire, dynamites, and pamphlets of proscribed organization were recovered from the possession of accused/petitioners---allegedly, the accused/petitioners, being members of proscribed organization (T.T.P), were arrested by the police and explosive material was recovered from their personal possession but no evidence had been collected against them during investigation showing that they were involved in anti-state activities or that they happened to be members of the proscribed organization---admittedly the accused/petitioners were arrested on 19.12.2024 and their alleged confessional statements were recorded by Superintendent of Police, on 23.12.2024 (after four days of their arrest)---It was evident from the order of anti-Terrorism Court, dated 20.12.2024, that three-days police custody of both the accused was granted but on the expiry of period of remand, the Investigating Officer/police instead of producing the accused /petitioners before the concerned judge, for recording their confessional statements, produced them before the Superintendent of Police, CTD, who recorded their confessional statements---Legally speaking the Police Officer/ Superintendent of Police, CTD, being a Supervisory Officer, could not be considered as an independent and impartial person and therefore, the confessional statements of accused/petitioners recorded by a Police Officer before expiry of police custody could not be used against them unless its voluntariness or admissibility was decided by the Trial Court---Moreover, fact of decamping of co-accused from the spot and that too from a large contingent of police and also arrest of accused/petitioners wearing slippers was sufficient to cast doubt about the authenticity of prosecution story narrated in the FIR---apart from the above, Expert Report was not available on record to confirm that the recovered material was an explosive substance---Furthermore, investigation in the case was complete and the accused/petitioners were no more required for further investigation---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Inayat Ullah vs State S — 2025 MLD 934 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD