COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE Versus TAJ COMPANY LTD.
This is an appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the appellants' application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case involved allegations that the appellants, office-bearers of a political alliance, opened fire on the complainant and the injured party following a political dispute, resulting in a bullet injury to the victim. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that without pre-empting the trial court's functions on the merits, the case was a fit one for the grant of anticipatory bail. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the appellants were admitted to pre-arrest bail upon furnishing appropriate security.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the accused are nominated in a promptly lodged First Information Report with specific roles assigned?
- Can the Supreme Court grant anticipatory bail while refraining from expressing a definite opinion on the merits of the case?
- Whether alleged political malice is a sufficient ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail in an attempted murder case?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J .‑After hearing counsel for the parties we converted the petition into an appeal and decided to dispose it of as such.
2. The appellants have assailed the order dated 28‑4‑1977 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by which Criminal Misc. No. 1420/B of 1977 was rejected.
3. A case was registered at Police Station, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal against the appellants who are the office‑bearers of the Pakistan National Alliance, under sections 148, 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at 1‑30 p.m. on the 22nd of April, 1977 for the attempted murder of Farzand Ali, a Mirasi by caste. It was disclosed in the report that the P. N. A. had given a call for Hartal on the fateful day but some of the shop keepers of Burewala Bazar belonging to the Pakistan People's Party had not responded to the call. Sometime before the incident a P. N. A. procession pass ed by Burewala Chowk and the processionists threatened Zakir Hussain Shah, a cigarette dealer, to close his shop and on his refusal to do so, he was injured by stones pelted by the crowd. On hearing about the incident Muhammad Ashraf, the complainant and others belonging to the People's Party arrived there and took the injured to the Hospital. After some time the proces sionists dispersed. The complainant and Farzand Ali crossed the bridge and as they neared the western wall of Purani Sabzi Mandi, they saw the appellants armed with rifles, guns and a pistol. On seeing them the first appellant abused them and gave a lalkara that they should not be spared that day upon which all the appellants fired at them as a result of which Farzand Ali received a bullet injury but the complainant managed to escape from there. After the appellants had decamped, he returned to the spot and removed the injured to the hospital.
4. The appellants apprehending their arrest moved an application in the Lahore High Court for anticipatory bail. A learned Single Judge while rejecting the application held that the First Information Report was lodged without inordinate delay in which the names of the appellants were disclosed and there was evidence of the fire‑arms having been effectively used.
5. The learned counsel contends that neither the complainant nor the injured were men of any political importance and, therefore, it was highly improbable that the appellants would have by design assembled to kill them with fire‑arms. It was further contended that even though it was alleged that all the appellants had fired at them but it is surprising that only the injured was hit and that too by a single bullet while the complainant managed to escape.
6. Lastly it was urged that the appellants were implicated out of malice because they were the office‑bearers of the P. N. A. It will be inappropriate to express any definite opinion on the culpability of the appellants as it is not our jurisdiction to pre‑empt the functions of the trial Court, but for the purpose of anticipatory bail we are convinced that it is a fit case in which they should be allowed bail. Accordingly, they are directed to furnish bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chichawatni. The appeal is allowed.
7. Appeal allowed.