MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs The STATE
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition by the Lahore High Court in a murder case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report did not disclose a case against him and that only a lalkara was attributed to him. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, attracting the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that upon perusal of the First Information Report, allegations clearly indicated that the petitioner had fired a shot at the scene, thereby prima facie establishing common intention. The key principle laid down is that where the First Information Report discloses overt acts and prima facie application of common intention under section 34, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be refused when the First Information Report prima facie discloses the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does a lalkara coupled with an allegation of firing a shot constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a petition for pre-arrest bail in limine.
2. The petitioner and to others, Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Rasul are accused in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Bhara Khan, on the 4th March, 1974. The petitioner and Ghulam Rasul were arrested on 10th March, 1974, and Ghulam Mustafa was arrested on the 15th of April, 1974. Two separate bail applications were filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, one by the petitioner and the other by Ghulam Mustafa. The latter was granted bail as his plea of alibi supported by a certificate produced from the Commanding Officer of his Unit, in which he was Lance Naik, prima facie, showed that he was present on duty in the Camp on the day of occurrence.
3. The petitioner's application was, however, rejected, even though in the F . I . R . Only a Lalkara was attributed to him.
4. The petitioner then moved the High Court for bail. The learned Judge in the High Court, after perusing the F. I. R. Came to the conclusion that apart from the Lalkara, it was also alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner himself had fired a shot at the deceased, but the shot missed the deceased. In the circumstances the provisions of section 34, P.P.C., were, prima facie, attracted and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
5. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition ha contended that the F.I.R. Did not even make out a case against the petitioner. We have also perused the F.I.R. And do not find any substance in the contention of the le4rned counsel. F.I.R. Clearly alleges that the petitioner, which passed over the shop of Mistri Nazir, made second fire.
6. The High Court, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion that prima facie, the common intention, as alleged, was there and as such section 34, P.P.C. Was applicable.
7. We see no reason to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs ABDULLAH And Another 1986 P Cr. L J 2599