Pakistan Case Law
1982 SCMR 910

FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 SCMR 910
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shah Nawaz Khan

ORDER

1. SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J .‑Fateh Muhammad and his two .accomplices are charged for the murder of Abdul Wahid. According to the copy of the F. I. R., which is on the file, the charge against the petitioner and his two accomplices is direct and in particular Fateh Muhammad is charged for firing the first shot at the deceased as a result whereof he was hit and he fell down.

2. It appears that while the case was in investigation stage, an application was moved before a local Magistrate of Hangu for the release of the accused on bail pending the disposal of the case. Fateh Muhammad petitioner and his accomplice Amir Alam were allowed bail by the Magistrate. Later the Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat, also granted bail to Nizamuddin, the second accomplice. Peshawar High Court was moved for the cancellation of the bail bonds granted to the accused persons, and the Acting Chief Justice by his order dated 13‑1‑1982 cancelled the bail of Fateh Muhammad petitioner and he was taken in custody and sent to judicial lock‑up. The application for cancellation regarding the other two accused was, however, rejected.

3. We have heard the 'learned counsel for Fateh Muhammad. His main stress was that the co‑accused of the petitioner have been allowed bail and that that was the sufficient ground for releasing the petitioner also on bail. As indicated above in the F. I. R., the petitioner is directly charged for effectively firing at Abdul Wahid, who was killed in village Karbogha. The High Court while disposing of the application for cancellation of bail of Fateh Muhammad petitioner also took into account the medical evidence which showed that the deceased had died as a result of fire shot. In the F. I. R. it is alleged that there had been a blood‑feud between the petitioner and the deceased.

4. We, therefore, see no reason to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The order passed by the High Court in this case cannot, therefore, be interfered with. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.

Cited by 2 cases

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