MUHAMMAD RAMEEZ vs The STATE and another
This petition was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Rameez, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 34, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a daylight firing incident that resulted in a death and injuries. The petitioner contended that he was only attributed the role of making aerial shots, which did not cause any direct injury, and that the determination of common intention required further inquiry. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner facilitated the main offence and that the challan had already been submitted. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the allegation of making aerial shots must be viewed in light of the main offence as a means of facilitation. The Court ruled that, on a tentative assessment, the petitioner shared a common intention with the co-accused, and since the challan was already submitted, releasing him on bail was not in the interest of justice. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
- Whether the act of making aerial shots during an attack can be considered as facilitating the commission of the main offence for the purpose of determining common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a post-arrest bail petition be dismissed on a tentative assessment of shared common intention even if the accused did not directly cause any physical injury to the victims?
- Does the submission of a challan affect the court's discretion to grant post-arrest bail in a murder case where the accused is charged with facilitating the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J.---Muhammad Rameez petitioner herein seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 91, dated 21-8-2012, under sections 302, 324, 34, 337-F(ii) P.P.C., Police Station Nilore, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Qaiser Naseer lodged the above said F.I.R. Stating therein that on the fateful day at about 1-30 p.m., he and his younger brother were on their way home. On reaching near the place of occurrence, the accused/petitioner along with three other co-accused had taken the position and on seeing them started firing. As a result of fire-shots of the co-accused he as well as his brother got injured. His brother succumbed to injuries and died on the spot. The present accused Muhammad Rameez was making aerial shots. The motive for the occurrence was that the sister of the complainant was divbrced by maternal uncle of the accused.
3. The accused /petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, East- Islamabad on 4-12-2012, hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been charged for making aerial shots and as such, the allegation against the petitioner is of common intention, which would require evidence and as such, the case of the petitioner is one of further enquiry. It has further been submitted that one of the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail. Motive for the offence is not proved, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the accused/ petitioner facilitated the occurrence by making aerial shots and is equally responsible for the alleged occurrence. It has further been submitted that the co- accused had been granted bail on medical grounds and the petitioner is therefore, not entitled to the same concession. Learned counse further submitted that challan has already been submitted and instead of granting bail, a direction may be issued to the learned trial Court for conclusion of trial.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. It is a daylight occurrence. All the accused have been given specific roles. Tentative assessment shows that all the accused shared common intention. The allegation of aerial shots is to be seen in the light of main offence. Making aerial shots, is in fact to facilitate the commission of main offence and therefore, cannot be taken in isolation. To prove the same, though, evidence would be required, yet prima facie, involves the accused/petitioner in the commission of main offence.
Challan has already been submitted in this case, so at this stage, releasing the petitioner on bail would not be in the interest of justice. In the circumstances, this bail petition is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within three months.