MOULA BUX and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two accused persons, Moula Bux and Iqbal, facing trial for offences under sections 302, 324, 114, 148, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations against them. The court held that while the allegation against Moula Bux was limited to instigation, the allegation against Iqbal involved direct firing at the deceased, which was corroborated by medical evidence showing multiple entry wounds. Consequently, the court granted bail to Moula Bux but declined bail to Iqbal. The key principle laid down is that where there is specific evidence of direct participation in a fatal attack, such as firing at a deceased, the inability to pinpoint the specific fatal shot among multiple injuries does not entitle an accused to bail, as the collective act of shooting precludes a claim of innocence regarding the fatal outcome, whereas mere instigation may be treated differently depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the allegation involves direct firing at the deceased, even if it is unclear which specific shot caused death?
- Does an allegation of instigation alone, without direct physical participation in the fatal act, provide sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can the fact that a case has not yet proceeded to trial despite the passage of time be a relevant factor in considering a bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Bail is claimed by Moula Bux and Iqbal facing trial in Crime No,76 of 2002 of Police Station Rustam, charged for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 114, 148 and 427, P.P.C.
2. ' Allegation against applicant No,1, Moula Bux is of instigating the commission of the crime, as regard other accused persons Pathan and Lakhmeer and applicant No,2, Iqbal are alleged to have chased the son of complainant Sher Muhammad to the roof top of the house and fired at him. Sher Khan received five shot injures and died on spot.
3. ' Learned counsel for applicants contended that there is only allegation of instigation against Moula Bux, who was empty-handed and as regard accused lqbal it was urged that it can be only decided at the trial that at whose fatal shot the deceased Sher Khan lost his life.
4. ' Mr. Vishnu, opposes the grant of bail. He contends that instigation is equally an overt act. Motive is specifically attributed to Moula Bux. Mr. Vishnu, in response of contention of Mr. Ghouri, that in counter-cases the complainant party herein who were accused in F.I.R. No,75 of 2002, were extended bail. It was urged that such bail was granted on merits without adverting to the counter- cases as urged by Mr. Ghouri in this case.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Ghouri, counsel for applicants and State counsel, who conceded bail for applicant Moula Bux while opposed bail for applicant Iqbal.
6. ' From contents of the F.I.R. It appears that allegation against applicant No,1, is of instigation of offence. Both the applicants were arrested on 28-12-2002, though case has been challaned but case has not yet proceeded, as according to the learned counsel for complainant the defence is merely prolonging the case by seeking adjournment. Allegation against applicant No,2 is of causing direct fire shot at the deceased Sher Khan along with co-accused Pathan and Lakhmeer.
7. The allegations in the F.I.R. Are corroborated by the medical evidence as it appears 4 entry wounds on the deceased and 2 exit wounds. Mere fact that whose injury was fatal, under circumstances, would not be relevant consideration as deceased has received 4 entry wounds. There cannot be any pious object while shooting at the deceased. Under circumstances, for the foregoing reasons bail is declined to Iqbal, whereas, bail is extended to Moula Bux, however, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- SHAHZADI SONIA vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 630
- GANHWAR BHUTTO vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 210
- GADAL vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 280