Hammadullah vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 288 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Hammadullah VS State Ss. 173, 190 & 561-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 114, 148 & 149---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Quashing of order---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---accused-applicants were aggrieved of order passed by Judicial Magistrate through which he did not agree with the findings of Investigating Officer declaring them innocent and placing their names in column No. 2 of the challan-sheet---Validity---admittedly opinion of Investigating Officer was not binding upon the Courts as the same was ipse dixit and the Magistrate was competent to agree or disagree with the opinion of police while exercising his administrative jurisdiction on a report submitted before him within the meaning of Ss.170 & 173, Cr.P.C.---Defence plea of the applicants regarding excluding them from commission of offence was no bar for conducting trial and it was a pure prerogative jurisdiction of Trial Court to give weight of evidence as led by both sides---Officer in charge must use such powers not in mechanical manner and must exercise the same with care and caution to satisfy himself that to release on bail would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution as in instant matter the findings of Investigating Officer might have caused prejudice and even the complainant himself disowned version of Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer exercised his powers without following the law as prescribed under Rule 26.21 of Police R. 1934, that there was a bar to release the accused who were involved in offence which were punishable with death or transportation for life and that FIR pertained to S.302 P.P.C and its punishment was death and/or imprisonment for life---Record reflected that applicants were nominated in commission of offence with their specific role with corroborating piece of evidence by supporting witnesses as well as medical evidence---So far as the independent witnesses were concerned, the credibility of those witnesses must be carried and given weight by the Trial Court at the time of trial as the applicants had remedy to produce them in their evidence at the time of recording their statements---Criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed being devoid of any legal substance.

Hammadullah vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 288 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR