NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the High Court of Sindh, which had refused post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving charges under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 504, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the existence of cross-versions of the incident, the sudden nature of the fight, and the fact that co-accused from both sides had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the incident appeared to be a sudden fight arising from a dispute over business operations rather than a premeditated murder. The Court held that since the question of which party was the aggressor remained to be determined at trial and considering the petitioner had already been in custody for over a year, the concession of bail was warranted. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the petitioner was admitted to bail, establishing the principle that bail may be granted in cases of sudden fights where culpability and aggression are contested issues.
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a murder case where the incident arose from a sudden fight rather than premeditation?
- Does the granting of bail to co-accused in the same incident provide a ground for the release of the remaining accused?
- Is the determination of the initial aggressor in a cross-version case a relevant factor for the grant of bail?
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- This petition is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh, dated 30-6-2008 whereby the petitioner was refused bail in Sessions Case No,130 of 2007 containing the allegations for committing offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 504 and 337-A(i), P.P.C. While his two co-accused were admitted to bail.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Prosecutor-General on behalf of the State and have also gone through the record. Two F.I.Rs,, one by the petitioner himself and the other by cousin of the deceased in respect to the same incident containing the version of the complainant party were registered. Reading the counter-version in juxtaposition with each other, the existence of a quarrel over money leading to raising of tempers and use of fire-arms by both parties appear to be acknowledge. It also appears to have been acknowledged that it was the complainant party, which went to the spot where the petitioner and his companions were already working. Apparently both the parties were involved in the same business i,e, excavating water channels leading to the sea. Apart from the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. a statement of the deceased brother Rehmatullah Khan, an accused in F.I.R. No,69 of 2007 and an eye-witness of the incident, made before a Magistrate has also been recorded. In the said statement the aforesaid Rehmatullah .Khan has stated that the petitioner and his brother were not allowing the complainant party to operate machines in the area where the former were already excavating. He has further stated that the deceased had asked the petitioner either to allow the machines to operate on the same site or to pay Rs,2,50,000 which the deceased and his partners owed a contractor. Apparently, tempers ran high in the course of argument leading to a sudden fight between the parties equipped with fire-arms.
3. Indeed, the ground that prevailed with the Courts below in declining bail to the petitioner was the fatal injury to the deceased was caused by a bullet allegedly fired at by the petitioner through his pistol. Nevertheless, it could not be said that this was a case of premeditated cold-blooded murder. It is yet to be determined that to which of the party was the aggressor and whether capital punishment or that of imprisonment for life could be awarded in the circumstances.
4. All the accused persons from both the sides have already been granted bail at one stage or another. Taking all factors into consideration coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for more than a year we are inclined to think that the concession of bail may also be extended to him Accordingly, we would convert this petition into an appeal and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 7 cases
- ASAD KHALIL Versus State 2026 SCMR 914
- Kamran Khan vs The State and another PLJ 2021 Cr.C.1571, 2021 P Cr. L J 1643
- MUHAMMAD AI:I and 3 others vs THE STAT 2012 MLD 1466, 2012 P Cr. L J 806
- MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1466
- NAZAR ALI vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2491
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 150
- AMAN ULLAH Versus State 2009 PCrLJ 1254