MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who is accused of involvement in a murder case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, whose only alleged overt act was summoning the deceased from his shop, shared a common intention with the co-accused who fired the fatal shot, thereby disentitling him to bail. The Court held that the allegation against the petitioner was limited to summoning the deceased, and the determination of whether he shared a common intention with the co-accused required further inquiry. Emphasizing that a deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage, the Court concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where the role of an accused is limited to an act that does not conclusively establish common intention, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the act of summoning a deceased person, without any other overt act, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
- Is the determination of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter requiring further inquiry at the bail stage?
- Should a court engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence when deciding a bail petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The post arrest bail has been claimed by the petitioner Muhammad Ramzan in a case F.I.R. No, 43/2011 dated 31.1.2011 registered under Sections 302/34, PPC at Police Station Shah Jamal District Muzaffargrah.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he summoned Muhammad Arif, the son of the complainant from his shop and his co-accused fired at him which hit on his chest who succumbed to injures.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false; he has been leveled with the only allegation of summoning of the deceased from the shop and no other overt act has been attributed to the petitioner therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. He has relied upon "Zohra Khanim us. The State (2009 SCMR 754.
4. Learned D.P.G. for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition and contended that it was the petitioner who summoned the deceased from the shop and in furtherance of their common intention of the accused/petitioner Muhammad Arif has been done to death by his co-accused namely Muhammad Sharif.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.P.G. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the record.
6. The simple allegation against the petitioner is that he summoned Muhammad Arif who was present in his Karyana Shop and his co-accused Muhammad Sharif fired at him with his pistol which hit on his chest and proved fatal to his life. No other overt act has been attributed to the petitioner except that he summoned the deceased from his shop. The question whether he shared the common intention with the co-accused, is required further inquiry. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage.
7. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petition r is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of s. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.