GHULAM MUJTABA QADRI vs THE STATE and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his pre-trial bail petition by the High Court in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not named in the initial FIR, his name surfaced only through a delayed supplementary statement, no specific overt act or role in the crime or motive was attributed to him, and he was a juvenile student. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as no role was attributed to him in causing the fatal injuries and he had no nexus with the motive. The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, establishing that absence of an overt role, delayed implication via supplementary statement, and juvenile status warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the FIR and implicated through a delayed supplementary statement without any specific role is entitled to bail?
- Does the absence of an overt act and motive against an accused attract the provisions of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Whether juvenile status and being a student are relevant considerations when deciding a bail petition in a capital charge?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,484 of 2011 dated 10-6-2011 under sections 302, 324 read with section 109, P.P.C. At Police Station Green Town, Lahore on the statement of Alamgir.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that the complainant runs a barber shop and his son Muhammad Babar also works there. It was alleged that prior to date of occurrence, one Ghulam Mustafa @ Manna Dacoit came to the shop for haircut and when asked about the charges for haircut, he said didn't the complainant know that he was Manna Dacoit who does not pay this kind of remuneration. This led to an altercation between complainant's son and the said Ghulam Mustafa @ Manna Dacoit. On 9-6-2011 at about 11/12 p.m. He again came for having his shave done, his son refused, which led to an altercation and the former left the shop holding out a threat to him.
In the early hours, the same day at about 3-30 a.m.," the said Ghulam Mustafa and 2 others came to their house; they were duly recognized by complainant's brother Muhammad Jehangir and his nephew Amir; they knocked at the door; his brother and nephew came out of the street and saw that his son Babar who resided in the upper portion of the house was peeping out of the window when Ghulam Mustafa @ Manna Dacoit started firing at his son. One 'of those fires hit his son's forehead and the accused decamped from the spot. Babar was immediately taken to Jinnah Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries and died. Petitioner Ghulam Mujtaba was not named in the F.I.R. However, his name appeared in the supplementary statement, stated to have been recorded on 10-6-2011 wherein the complainant explained that on account of the shock of the tragic moment, he could not correctly recollect as to who were the other culprits but on queries made, he was told that Ghulam Mustafa @ Manna Dacoit was accompanied by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the petitioner was not named in the -FIR.; that no role is attributed to him; that he is not even connected with the motive part of the prosecution story and that he is a student of 9th class and nothing is to be recovered from him.
4. Teamed Additional Prosecutor-General submitted that although as a Prosecutor, he does not support the petition but the fact remains that no role is attributed to the petitioner and during investigation it was found that he was merely present at the spot and further that he is 17 years of age.
5. aving heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer at some length, we find that admittedly neither the petitioner has been attributed any role in causing the murder nor is he connected with the motive part of the prosecution story. He is less than 18 years of age and is a student. We are surprised how could the learned High Court while dismissing the petition hold that "specific role is attributed to him". In the afore-referred circumstances, the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, he shall be released on bail.
Cited by 3 cases
- Syed Junaid Ahmed and another vs The State 2023 YLR 1740
- NAWAZ ALI JATT Versus State 2020 PCrLJN 89
- AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus State 2018 YLRN 149