Pakistan Case Law
1981 SCMR 849

BABOO vs The STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1981 SCMR 849
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 49 of 1977 Cr. Misc. No. 3890/B of
Date1977-11-25
Judge(s)Anwaral Haq, C. J. and Nasim Hasan Shah
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 148, 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The FIR alleged that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly armed with a gun and fired a shot injuring a prosecution witness during an incident where one person was killed and several were injured. The petitioner argued that he did not fire the fatal shot, was found innocent during investigation, and that there was significant delay in trial. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was allegedly part of an unlawful assembly armed with a weapon, the non-attribution of the fatal shot was immaterial. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer placed his name in Column No. 3 as a regular accused rather than Column No. 2, so the officer's opinion provided no benefit. Lastly, delay per se is not a sufficient ground for bail. The petition was dismissed with liberty to reapply in case of inordinate delay.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the non-attribution of a fatal shot to an accused a valid ground for bail when the accused is charged as a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused claim the benefit of an investigating officer's opinion of innocence if their name is placed in Column No. 3 of the challan as a regular accused?
  • Does delay in trial per se constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailunlawful assemblyColumn No. 3 accusedinvestigating officer opiniondelay in trialvicarious liability

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAZI, C. J -The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court to enlarge him on bail in a case pending against him under sections 148, 302 and 307, P. P, C. Read with section 149 thereof.

2. In the first information report recorded on the 22nd of May, 1975, it was alleged that the petitioner Baboo was a member of the unlawful assembly, that he was armed with a gun and he fired a shot which hit prosecution witness Nasibullah. During the course of the transaction in which Ibrahim was killed, it appears that a large number of persons en the complainant side were injured.

3. An earlier application filed by the petitioner for the grant of bail bad been dismissed by the High Court on 21st October, 1975. His second application was dismissed on the 21st of January 1977 for the reason that no new grounds had been made out.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Chughtai that the fatal shot is not attributed to the petitioner, that he was found innocent by the Investigating Officer, and that in any case there has been considerable delay in the trial of the case, which is not likely to take place for some time due to the pendency of a large number of cases in the Sessions Court.

5. As the allegation against the petitioner is that he had joined the unlawful assembly by arming himself with a gun, it is immaterial whether the fatal shot is attributed to him or not. Although the Investigation Officer is said to have found him innocent, yet the name of the petition was not shown in Column No. 2, but in Column No. 3 as a regular accusedNo benefit can, therefore, accrue to the petitioner on the basis of the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

6. It is true that there has been delay in the trial of the case, but delay per se is not a sufficient ground for the grant of bail. We would accordingly dismiss this petition, but the petitioner may, if so advised, apply again to the appropriate Court in case there is inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial.

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.