Samar Abbas vs State S — 2025 YLR 2639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Samar Abbas VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, abettor present at the time of occurrence, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---First and foremost fact in the case was the absence of the petitioners on the day of occurrence from cement company---Report so furnished by the company was confusing, however separate sheets attached with report reflected that "SA" petitioner was employee and was in attendance in the company office from 7.58 am to 15.58 pm on fateful day, whereas "R" petitioner being employee was absent on that day---Stance of the company was that though attendance of "SA" petitioner was marked in the record yet he was not physically present in the company, but such stance was not supported by any material, documentary or forensic---Role of driving motorcycle was assigned to "R" petitioner, whereas role of firing was assigned to "SA" petitioner but from the circumstances on the record, it became evident that he was in cement company at the time of occurrence, casting a doubt on his involvement in commission of murder---Though Call Data Record was claimed to show connection of "SA" and "MR" near the place of occurrence, but this was without any voice message/transcript---Thus, it did not connect the petitioners with the commission of offence until and unless such Call Data Record was formalized in accordance with law---Once prosecution opted to make it a case of ocular account, then circumstances highlighted by counsel (s) for the petitioners including press clipping apparently made the case against the petitioners doubtful---While considering material at bail stage, Court always acts inquisitorially to search for avenues of further inquiry into the guilt of accused and thus, could consider any material, that could be transformed into admissible format at a later stage, in order to grant or decline bail to the accused---Press clippings showed that if author or reporter of press clipping appeared in the dock, it could become admissible evidence; however, cogency thereof rested upon the intrinsic value of information, its reliability and source authentication which of course would be determined after recording of all the evidence in the case---Thus, Court could consider such piece of evidence at present stage as well---At present, facts highlighted by counsel for the petitioners clearly showed that implication of present petitioners in this case rested on frail pillars---Said situation provided a premium to the petitioners to seek bail on the touchstone of further inquiry which was very much available in this case---Thus, petitioners had made out a case for further inquiry---Petitioners were behind the bars since 17.10.2024; investigation was complete and persons of the petitioners were not required for further investigation---Keeping the petitioners behind the bars for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution---Bail petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Samar Abbas vs State S — 2025 YLR 2639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR