MUHAMMAD SARWAR alias BAO vs STATE and another
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sarwar, seeking release in a murder case registered under FIR No. 436/2013 at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner accompanied his co-accused to recover a debt from the deceased, during which the co-accused snatched a .12-bore pump action gun from the petitioner and fired the fatal shot. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was merely present and armed but did not fire the weapon or cause any injury, shared a common intention with the co-accused to commit murder. The Court held that since no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner and he did not perform any overt act such as firing or raising a lalkara, his liability under the doctrine of common intention required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the petitioner's guilt necessitated further probe, and directed his release subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no specific injury is attributed to him and the fatal shot was fired by a co-accused?
- Does the mere possession of a weapon without evidence of firing or overt acts establish common intention at the bail stage?
- When does the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Having failed before the learned trial Court to get himself released on bail in case FIR No, 436, dated 10.10.2013, offences under Sections 302, 109, 34, PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Mian *Channu, District Khanewal, the petitioner has again tried his luck before this Court for the same relief.
2. It is the prosecution case that deceased Shamshad had to pay an amount of Rs, 1,000/- to the real brother of the petitioner, namely Shaukat, who sent the petitioner and his co-accused Ghulam.
Rasool to recover the said amount of Rs, 1,000/-; that the petitioner and his co-accused approached the deceased and asked him to make payment of the said amount, which he did not pay, whereupon, co-accused of the petitioner snatched .12-bore pump action from the petitioner and made fire therefrom, hitting the deceased, resulting into his death.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that except that the petitioner was equipped with .12-bore pump action, he did not make any fire, nor raised lalkara, nor any injury has been attributed to him. Therefore, it is a matter of further inquiry as to whether the petitioner had shared common intention with his co-accused. This being so, to my mind, guilt of the petitioner requires further probe, entitling him to grant of bail. He shall be released from jail on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.