Further inquiry

  1. The questions as to whether the symbols were used in the context of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) as is the case of the prosecution or the same were merely used to lay emphasis on the views expressed by the accused need further inquiry specifically so when there are divergent ‘FATWA’ about the book in question by Islamic scholors. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 184 (B)
  2. The gun recover from the accused was not used in the commission of offence — In the same way knife recovered from the other accused was not used as no knife injury was noticed by the Doctor while conducting postmortem — The accused-respondents were not nominated in the F.I.R. nor were indentified by the wife of the accused — Held: The District Qazi was justified in observing that the case of the accused respondents was one of further inquiry — The benefit of bail extended to them was rightly upheld by the Shariat Court. Riasat H. v. The State  2003 SCR 117 (A)
  3. The Doctors advised to ensure that medicines of hypertension are properly administered to him and in case his blood pressure is not controlled they were advised to adjust the proposed medicines to Kifayat Ali — But he went his home instead of hospital where after about 25 days he  died — Whether negligence on his part is the main cause of his death is a question which cannot be resolved at this stage — However, this is a material aspect of the case which prima facie brings the case of the accused within the purview of further inquiry. Muhammad Jahangir v. kala Khan and another 2004 SCR 359 (C)
  4. To prove as to whether the alleged irregular or illegal actions of the appellants were deliberate, with a criminal intention or bona fide mistakes not amounting to misuse of authority is a question of further inquiry. M. Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (L)
  5. The accused filed denial in writing against the accusation made in writing supported by documentary evidence — The trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant evidence shall decide controversy one way or the other. M. Munir Awan v. AJK Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (Q)
  6. The matter cannot be decided merely on the basis of assertions made by the parties — It can be adjudicated upon after the relevant evidence is produced by the parties for and against their respective claim — At bail stage the superior Courts are not supposed to dive deep into the facts of the case and record any finding prior to decision by the subordinate Courts — Finding on factual aspect of the case complete domain of the trial Court that too after the conclusion of the trial — The superior Courts while deciding bail matters should refrain from using such language which may prejudice the case of defence or prosecution at trial. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (O)
  7. Lalkara — Attribution of — The role attributed to Sardar Ali and Muhammad Asif is distinguishable from the rest of the accused — They have been attributed for ‘Lalkara’ — They are not attributed any active role in the incident — The involvement of Sardar Ali and Muhammad Asif in the incident needs further inquiry for making them vicariously liable — It will be too early for us to express such opinion against them. The trial Court was justified to allow them concession of bail and was rightly maintained by the Shariat Court.Mukhtar H. v. The State2005 SCR29 (C)
  8. If the Court reaches to the conclusion that the matter yet requires further inquiry then the petitioner shall be released on bail. Sohrab Khan & another v. State 2008 SCR 632 (B)
  9. Bail — Grant of — The report of doctor is not supportive to the case of prosecution because the prosecution has alleged that the deceased was done to death by strangulation. The doctor has not recorded definite opinion as to death of deceased. Held: — The case against the appellant prima-facie appears to be doubtful on this score and falls in the ambit of further inquiry.Abdul Khaliq v. State and other 2010 SCR 402 (D)
  10.  — Under law, for bringing a case in the ambit of further inquiry, there must be some evidence, which on the tentative assessment, may create a reservation in respect of commission of offence. Rasham Din Versus State & another 2021 SCR 180 (C)
error: Content is protected !!