MUHAMMAD AMIR And 2 Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioners, Muhammad Amir, Bashir, and Jehan, who along with others were accused of the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the specific role attributed to each accused. The Supreme Court held that the case of petitioners Muhammad Amir and Jehan fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under criminal jurisprudence, noting that Muhammad Amir used the blunt side of a hatchet despite carrying a revolver, and the medical report did not substantiate the injury attributed to Jehan on a non-vital part. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to both petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where specific roles attributed to accused persons and the medical evidence create reasonable doubt regarding intent or the nature of injuries on non-vital parts, the case warrants further inquiry, making it a fit case for the grant of bail.
- Whether the role attributed to an accused carrying a firearm but using a blunt weapon creates a case for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Does an unsubstantiated injury on a non-vital part of the deceased by an accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- When can a petition for leave to appeal in a criminal matter be converted into an appeal and allowed for the grant of bail?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Muhammad Amir, Bashir and Jehan petitioners applied for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4-7-1984, dismissing their bail application.
2. The petitioners alongwith 3 others are accused of the murder of Muhammad Ramzan.
The motive for the offence is stated to be that Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) was suspected of having illicit relations with Mst. Sawai daughter of Muhammad Nawaz co-accused. All the accused are said to have inflicted hatchet blows (with its reverse side) to Muhammad Ramzan on his legs as a result of which he died.
3. The allegation against Muhammad Amir petitioner is that he was carrying a revolver but he did not use it and, instead, is stated to have snatched the -hatchet of Jehan co-accused and inflicted injuries with its blunt side on the legs of the deceased. The allegation against Jehan petitioner is that he gave injury with the blunt side of his hatchet on the legs of the deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition with regard to Bashir co- accused.
5. We issued notice to the State and Rao M.Yousaf, has appeared on behalf of the State.
The petitioners' counsel argued that if Muhammad Amir had gone armed with a revolver with the intention to kill Muhammad Ramzan, he would have used it rather than snatching the hatchet from someone else and inflicted injuries therewith. As regards Jehan petitioner, he submitted that the only allegation against him is that he caused injuries on non-vital part of the deceased which has not been substantiated by) the medical report.
6. After having given our anxious thought to these contentions we feel that this is a case of 'further inquiry'. We, therefore, convert the petition into appeal and allow the same, and grant bail to Muhammad Amir and Jehan petitioners, in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali .
Cited by 1 case
- ASLAM vs THE STATE--Opponent 1986 P Cr. L J 446