MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 688 of 1998 registered under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of distinguishable role and advanced age. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case could not be distinguished from the main accused at this preliminary stage, as prima facie allegations of common intention and direct participation—including firing a carbine resulting in injuries—were reflected in the record, and further held that old age simpliciter does not entitle an accused to bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and bail refused, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of advanced age?
- Can the case of an accused credited with a specific firearm injury be distinguished from the main accused at the preliminary bail stage when common intention is alleged?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 28th of June, 1999 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2355-B of 1999.
2. Petitioner alongwith other co-accused being connected with commission of offence arising out of F.I.R. No.688 of 1998 lodged with Police Station, Factory Area, Sheikhupra, under section 302/324, P.P.C. was apprehended by the concerned police. Prosecution allegations against him that apart from raising Lalkara for inciting others to complainant party, petitioner Muhammad Bashir also fired carbine shot inflicting injuries on the person of Mst. Parveen Bibi wife of Liaqat Ali.
3. Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, vehemently argued that petitioner is an old man aged about 75 years and accusations against him were distinguishable from the main accused, who had inflicted fatal injuries upon deceased Safdar Hussain.
4. The request for bail has been opposed by Mr. M. Sharif, learned counsel appearing for State. He maintained that prosecution allegations disclose direct participation of petitioner and common intention of attacking the complainant party, which resulted in the murder of Safdar Hussain and fire-arm injuries to Mst. Parveen Bibi, Mst. Safia Bibi.
5. We have carefully examined the record in the light of above submissions.
Firstly at this preliminary stage, case of the petitioner cannot be legitimately distinguished from that of the main accused. Prima facie, allegations of common intention are reflected from the averments of F.I.R. and attending circumstances. Therefore, taking into consideration nature of accusations including firing of carbine whereby Mst. Safia Bibi was injured, we feel that case for bail is not made out at this stage.
Secondly old age simplicitor does not entitle petitioner to the grant of bail.
For the above reasons petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel states that despite submission of challan trial has not commenced. The Trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of the case.
N.H.Q./M-374/S Bail refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Shaikh Ghulam Murtaza Adv vs The State 2023 SHC 890