Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 206

MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 206
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 98 of 1983
Date1983-05-06
Judge(s)S. A. Nusrat and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
Authored byMian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultPetition accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being charged alongside co-accused for the murder of the deceased. His previous bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of lack of attribution of fatal blows and the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused assigned similar or more active roles had been admitted to bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail considering the circumstances and the role attributed to him. The Court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that parity in treatment with co-accused and non-attribution of fatal injuries are relevant considerations for granting bail in murder cases.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused not attributed with fatal blows to the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused form a valid ground for granting bail to another accused on the rule of consistency?
post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencyfatal injuriesSupreme Court of Pakistan

ORDER

' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-The petitioner, alongwitb 4 other accused, was charged for the murder of Ajayab Khan deceased. He applied for bail to the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari which was rejected by order dated 1-9-1982. He then applied for bail to the Lahore High Court which was again rejected vide impugned order dated 18-1-1983.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no blow had been attributed to the petitioner causing the death of the deceased. In the F. I. R. The co-accused of the petitioner have been charged for dealing blows to the deceased on his head and the medical evidence shows that the deceased died of the head injuries, and as such the petitioner cannot be held responsible for causing the fatal injuries to the deceased ; that the other co-accused Sulta has been admitted to bail by the learned High Court vide order dated 20-12-1982. Notice was issued to the Advocate- General vide order dated 27-4-1983. We admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs, 20,00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Duty Magistrate, Mailsi.

Cited by 7 cases

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