Pakistan Case Law
1976 SCMR 182

WARIS MUHAMMAD Versus AHMAD YAR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1976 SCMR 182
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. 61 and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 56‑A of 1975
Date1975-11-21
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J. and Muhammad Gul
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali C.
ResultBail allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who along with three co-accused was committed to the Court of Session under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Bashir Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail notwithstanding his commitment for trial and the allegation of firing the fatal shot, given the delayed naming of the accused in the first information report and the peculiar circumstances of the investigation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, granting bail to the petitioner. The holding establishes that where the reliability of the initial report and the identification of the accused during investigation are subject to serious questions, post-arrest bail may be granted even after commitment to the trial court, without delving into the final guilt or innocence of the accused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted after the accused has been committed to the Court of Session for trial under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a significant delay in naming the accused in the first information report constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Will an appellate court interfere with the refusal of bail by lower courts when the circumstances of the investigation warrant relief?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailmurderdelayed FIRcriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI C. J. ‑The petitioner and his 3 co‑accused have been committed to the Court of Session to stand trial under section 302/34, P. P. C. for committing the murder of Bashir Ahmad. Ordinarily, thereafter the accused are not to be allowed bail but the Sessions Judge has; in the peculiar features of the case, allowed bail to the co-accused but denied this facility to the petitioner on the ground that he had allegedly fired the fatal shot at the deceased.

2. We have perused the record and find that in the F. I. R. the culprit names were not mentioned by Allah Yar, respondent. He was associated with the investigation conducted by the Police Officer Incharge and during the first 17 days he suspected 3 others for the murder. Thereafter he mentioned the four accused including the‑petitioner as the culprits. The explanation given was that he was not quite in his senses when he the F.I.R.

3. Besides the counsel for the petitioner, we heard Mr. M. A. Bajwa for Advocate General and Mr. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for, Ahmad Yar, private complainant. We do not wish to comment ' on 'the guilt WI innocence of the petitioner and his co‑accused. The result the trial twill depend on the quality of evidence produced by the prosecution arid the plea of defence. However, we do find it a case in which the petitioner may be allowed bail in spite of the order of commitment.

4. The petition is accordingly converted into an appeal and accepted with the direction that the petitioner may be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Multan.

5. Bail allowed

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.