MUHAMMAD IRFAN vs The STATE and others
This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the refusal of post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was armed and alleged to have resorted to firing but was not attributed any specific firearm injury to the deceased or eye-witnesses, was entitled to post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that where an accused is not attributed any injury to the deceased and the sole fatal injury is attributed to a co-accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused, coupled with attribution of the fatal blow to a co-accused, warrants the grant of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific firearm injury is attributed to him in a murder case?
- Does the mere allegation of being armed and resorting to non-fatal firing preclude an accused from being granted bail under the scope of further inquiry?
- When does a criminal case fall within the purview of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, C.J.---Petitioner and his two brothers were proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 99 dated 3-3-2013 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur wherein it is alleged that on the fateful day and time they having armed themselves with fire-arms attacked the complainant party and resorted to firing as a result of which Liaquat Ali son of the complainant was killed.
2. The motive alleged is that a day prior to the occurrence petitioner was refused an agricultural instrument i.e. Suhaga by the complainant which annoyed him and hence the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that petitioner is not attributed any injury either to the deceased or to any eye-witness; that petitioner's involvement is a product of mala fides; that all the three brothers have been made accused; that petitioner is in judicial lockup ever-since his arrest and no more required for further investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Prosecutor-General have opposed the petition. According to them, petitioner had instigated the co-accused; that he was armed at the time of occurrence; that he resorted to firing which did not hit anyone and that he is vicariously liable for murder of Liaquat.
5. Having considered the submissions made, we find that admittedly the petitioner is not attributed any firearm injury either to the deceased or to the eye-witnesses. The deceased received only one firearm injury which is attributed to co-accused Muhammad Imran, A petitioner's brother. In the afc,re-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 bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court he shall be released on bail. Needless to observe, if petitioner misuses the concession of bail in any manner, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel the bail after hearing him.
Cited by 9 cases
- Ayaz Ahmad vs State and another PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1480
- Ayaz Ahmad vs The State and another 2022 LHC 2010
- Intizar Hussain vs The State and another 2022 MLD 103
- Anwar Ali Khaskheli and another vs The State 2022 MLD 570
- MANIK and another vs The STATE 2019 MLD 1342
- MEHRAB SAMEJO Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 153
- Wajid Ali vs The State and another 2016 SCP 100
- NAEEM-UL-ARFEEN Versus State 2016 YLRN 112
- ABBAS ALI Versus State 2016 PCrLJN 65