SOHAIL vs THE STATE And Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner in a murder case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his commitment to the Court of Sessions for trial. The petitioner sought parity, arguing that his father and brother, who were co-accused, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner stood on the same footing as the co-accused. The Court observed that the co-accused were not named in the First Information Report, whereas the petitioner was specifically named as the principal accused and attributed with inflicting the fatal injury. The Supreme Court held that this distinction fully justified the High Court's cancellation of bail under the established precedent. Dismissing the petition, the Court affirmed that bail may be cancelled upon commitment when the principal role in a capital offense is attributed to the accused.
- Whether an accused named in the F.I.R. as the principal offender who committed the fatal injury can claim bail on the ground of parity with co-accused not named in the F.I.R.?
- Does commitment of an accused to the Court of Session for trial justify cancellation of bail where specific fatal role is attributed to him?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.--This petition is from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 7-4-1975 whereby bail granted earlier to the petitioner herein, who was accused alongwith others in a case under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. Was cancelled because he had since been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
2. The main ground urged by the learned counsel in support of the petition is that the petitioner's father and brother who were also co-accused in the case have been allowed bail by this Court on 9-11-1973 in the appeal arising out of petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 322 of 1973. It appears that this Court allowed the bail to them because neither of the to was named as accused in the F.I.R. On the other hand the fatal injury is attributed to the petitioner herein and he is also named in the F.I.R. As the principal accused. This clearly distinguishes the petitioner's case from the other accused and, therefore, A the bail was rightly cancelled by the High Court following the dictum of this Court in Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Hanif 1970 SCMR 143.
3. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.