RIASAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondents, who were accused of murder and other offences. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion perversely in granting bail despite the allegations of murder and the presence of eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of the case, noting that the investigation revealed the deceased was armed with a gun and had initiated fire, thereby invoking the right of private defence. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion by considering the applicability of the right of private defence under the law and the specific nature of the injuries attributed to the respondents. The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order, as the respondents were entitled to the concession of bail given the findings regarding the deceased's initial aggression and the lack of causal link between the co-accused's actions and the death. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Whether the High Court's discretion in granting bail is perverse when the investigation suggests the deceased initiated the aggression?
- Does the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code constitute a valid ground for granting bail in a murder case?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the investigation indicates the injury inflicted by them did not cause the death of the deceased?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 19-5- 1979 of the Lahore High Court whereby Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Akhtar (respondents herein) were enlarged on bail.
2. The respondents herein along with others are accused of offences under section 302/1481307/149, P. P. C. Originally they were accused of offences falling under sections 307/149 and 148, P. P. C., but on the death of Iqbal section 302, P. P. C. Was also added.
3. According to the F. I. R. Lodged by Riasat A.I (petitioner herein) the respondents along with others, while variously armed, waylaid Iqbal deceased and others and injured them. Asghar respondent, who was allegedly armed with a pistol fired a shot on Iqbal deceased hitting him in the abdomen while Muhammad Akhtar respondent inflicted a sota injury on his head. The accused moved the Sessions Judge for bail who rejected the application of the respondents herein, but admitted the co-accused to bail. Both the respondents, therefore, approached the Lahore High Court and a learned Judge thereof was pleased to release them also on bail, Hence this petition.
4. It is submitted before us that the respondents are, prima facie, guilty of murder in that they along with ten co-accused while variously armed waylaid the complainant party and attacked the deceased and others as a result whereof the deceased was done to death. It was a day time occurrence which was witnessed by six witnesses out of whom four have absolutely no connection with the complainant, party. In these circums--tances the High Court had exercised its discretion perversely in granting bail to them.
5. We regret we cannot agree. The High Court while releasing the respondents on bail appears to have been impressed by the circumstance that the investigation revealed that the deceased was armed with a gun and he was the first to open fire, although unsuccessfully, where after Muhammad Asghar respondent used his pistol. The learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, expressed the view that the case of Muhammad, Asghar respondent was covered by clause first to section 100, P. P. C. He also opined that the death of the deceased was not due to any injury caused by the blow allegedly inflicted by Akhtar respondent. In this view of the matter the respondents herein were also found entitled to the concession of bail. No exception can be taken to the exercise of discretion by the High Court in favour of the respondents in these circumstances. This petition is accordingly dismissed.