MUHAMMAD ARIF vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 1977, dated 26th July 1977, whereby bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled. The case arose from an FIR registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that the petitioner held the deceased in a Japha (embrace/grapple), facilitating his co-accused to deliver fatal dagger blows. The petitioner contended that he was empty-handed, that allegations of Japha are frequently fabricated to falsely implicate individuals, that a co-accused had been discharged, and sought the benefit of doubt for grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail. The Court observed that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot and that a specific, definite allegation of holding the deceased in a Japha was attributed to him in the FIR. At this preliminary stage, benefit of doubt could not be extended. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an accused who allegedly held the deceased in a Japha to facilitate co-accused in inflicting fatal injuries is entitled to the grant of bail?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended at the bail stage to an accused captured on the spot with a specific role assigned in the FIR?
- Whether the High Court properly exercises its discretion by cancelling bail granted to an accused assigned the role of catching hold (Japha) of the deceased during a murder?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD. J.-This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 1977, dated 26th July, 1977. By this Order, the High Court cancelled the bail allowed to r the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts leading to the present petition are that on 7th September, 1976 a case F.
1. R. No. 286 under section 302/34, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station, Baghbanpura, Lahore on the statement of one M. Ibrahim son of Haji Nawab Din against three persons namely the petitioner, M.
3. Ibrahim alias Kala and M. Munir. It was alleged that they had committed the murder of M. Nazir at about 6 p. m. On 7th September, 1976 near the crossing of Daroghawala, Lahore.
4. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore on 25th January, 1977. This bail was cancelled by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court and the petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he held the deceased in a Japha and his co-accused Ibrahim alias Kala and Munir thus facilitated, gave dagger blows to the deceased. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not attach much importance to this fact, and released the petitioner on, bail. On the other hand, the learned Judge of the High Court opined that the petitioner grappled with the deceased and it was thereafter that the deceased was stabbed to death. He further observed that the petitioner was captured on the spot, and handed over to the Police.
6. Mr. R. A. Awan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contend--ed that the petitioner was empty-hanaee, that now a days allegations of Japha are made against the accused persons to entangle them in false cases, and, therefore it was fit case in which the bail should be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel relied on 1974 SCMR 376 in which this Court gave benefit of doubt to a person against whom the allegation of holding the deceased by Japha was made. He further relied on a decision in 1976 P Cr. L 1758. The learned counsel further contended that M.
7. Ibrahim alias Kala has been discharged, and there is no reason why the petitioner, against whom there is the only allegation of holding the deceased by Japha, should not be released on bail.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court has exercised the discretion properly. The petitioner was captured on the spot. There is a definite allegation against him in the F. I. R. For holding the decease by Japha. In our opinion, at this stage, it is not possible to give any benefit of doubt to the petitioner. There is no force in the petition. Th petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUSHTAQ alias NIIKU vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 158
- MUHAMMAD KHURSHID and 3 others vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 691
- BAKHT ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-- 1981 P Cr. L J 1269