PROF. MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds that no fatal injury was attributed to him and that a cross-first information report had been lodged with conflicting versions of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's presence, active participation evidenced by a firearm injury inflicted on an injured witness, and the existence of distinguishing features justifying differential treatment among co-accused negate the grant of bail at this stage. The court laid down the principle that minute sifting of prosecution evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and where lower courts have properly evaluated the material and applied distinguishing features among co-accused, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail merely because no fatal injury is attributed to him in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant bail when no legal or factual error is pointed out?
- Whether the existence of a cross-first information report automatically entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner is involved alongwith three others in a case reported in F.I.R. No. 253, dated 2-11-1979; at Police Station, Pattoki, District Kasur, under section 302/ 307/34, P. P.
C. For murder of Muhammad Rashid son of Qasim A.I and for causing injuries on the forehead and face of Mst. Sharifa with fire-arm. The petitioner applied for bail which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge on 22-2-197$. The petitioner then approached the High Court by means of a Criminal. Miscella--neous Application No. 887/B of 1978 but without any success as the same was dimissed by a learned. Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 2I-6-1978. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not been attributed any fatal shot to the deceased and therefore, he deserved bail. The contention has no merit. The petitioner has injuries on-his body which shows his participation in the occurrence and as a matter of fact this aspect of the case was not denied by the learned counsel. The petitioner according to the F.I.R. Is the person who came out with a 12 bore gun and is said to have fired with it which resulted in injuries on the forehead and face of Mst. Sharifan sister of the deceased. It is not- a stage to sift the prosecution evidence in minute details. The two courts below after attending to the various aspects of the case were of the view that it was not justified to release the petitioner on bail: We have not been able to find any legal or factual error in the approach of the High Court. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel submitted that a cross F. I. R. Has also been registered about the same occurrence for the injuries caused to the petitioner and Mst. Khurshid (niece), Mst. Fateh Bibi (mother) and Muhammad Sharif brother of a the petitioner. He submitted that when there were two versions about the same occurrence, the petitioner should have been released on bail as some other co-accused namely Shaukat and Muhammad Sharif accused in F.I.R. Under consideration have already been released -on bail. The contention has no merit. The High Court has examined the distinguishing features of the case of each accused and we have not been shown that in doing so the High Court violated any principle of law warranting interference by this Court in matters of this nature. As the learned counsel has not been able to point out violation of any legal or any other principle we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
Cited by 2 cases
- AFTAB KHAN vs HAAMID HUSSAIN and anothers 1995 P Cr. L J 552
- AFTAB AHMAD SHAH vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 112