IKRAM And Another vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 379, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who allegedly chased, caught hold of, and grappled with the deceased while a co-accused fired the fatal shot, are entitled to bail in view of the application of vicarious liability under section 34. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and without caprice in finding that section 34 was prima facie attracted to the facts, thereby disentitling the petitioners to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons actively facilitate the commission of an offense by chasing and grappling with the victim, common intention is prima facie established, justifying the refusal of bail.
- Whether an accused who catches hold of a deceased during an assault is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Do the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply where co-accused facilitate a fatal shooting by grappling with the victim?
- Did the High Court exercise its discretion properly in refusing bail based on the specific allegations in the F.I.R.?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.--A case was registered against the petitioners alongwith Asghar Ali, Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Younas, under F.I.R. No.116/249, dated 6-8-1977 by the P.S. Hujra, for offence under section 302/379/34, P.P.C. Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Younas have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 10-9-1977. The petitioners, since then, are in judicial lock-up.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Muhammad Sharif was present near the Primary School and waiting for the preparation for his and his companions votes. It is alleged that both the petitioners, while armed with a revolver, came alongwith Asghar Ali who was carrying a rifle. The deceased, on seeing the accused party, started running away. According to the F.I.R., all the accused ran after him. The petitioners also ran after the deceased while firing at him. They caught hold of him, and grappled with the deceased. Thereupon, accused Asghar Ali fired at the deceased whereby he died. The petitioners moved an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which was dismissed on 23-10-1977. The matter was then taken to the Lahore High Court, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous; No. 439/B/1978, considered the matter, and has come to the conclusion that section 34 applied to the facts of the present case, and the petitioners are not entitled to bail. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him, properly and has not rejected the application of the petitioners for bail, on capricious or arbitrary grounds. The F.I.RA shows that the petitioners ran after the deceased, caught hold of him, and grappled with him, and thus facilitated Asghar Ali to fire a short at the deceased. Prima facie, on these facts, the provisions of section 34 are attracted.
4. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to grant bail to the petitioners. The petition is dismissed.