MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs TIE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the existence of two differing versions of the prosecution case during investigation, attributing materially different roles, warranted the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that since the motive for the crime and the main role were consistently attributed to the petitioner in both versions, alongside the recovery of an unlicensed gun, the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage, and the High Court committed no error of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of bail and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the existence of two differing versions of the prosecution case during investigation makes it a case for further inquiry justifying bail?
- Does the consistent attribution of motive and a material role in multiple prosecution versions disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- When does the recovery of an unlicensed weapon influence the grant or refusal of bail in a violent crime case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 21-12-1.982 whereby bail was refused to him in a case registered at Police Station Bhalwal, district Sargodha vide F.I. R. No. 182 dated 26-7-1981.
2. The petitioner alongwith nine others was charged for offences under section 302/307/148/149, P. P.
3. C. He was allegedly armed with 12 bore gun and had fired with it. During the investigation of the case another version of the prosecution case appeared for which an approver also appeared on the scene against the petitioner.
4. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed bail for the petitioner was that there were two versions of the prosecution case itself and in the two versions materially different roles were attributed to the petitioner making it a case of further inquiry. The High Court repelled this ground by holding that in both the versions the petitioner has been attributed the main role and an unlicensed gun had also been recovered from him. It was further held to be not a fit case for bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find the motive for the crime has been consistently attributed to the petitioner in both the versions. He played a material role, according to the evidence as it stands today. The recovery of an unlicensed gun has been attributed him. At this stage, therefore, the petitioner could reasonably be denied the benefit of bail and in ordering so the High Court has not committed an such error of law as may require interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
6. S. Q.