FAROOQ NAWAZ And Others vs THE STATE And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail of the petitioners by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners, along with others, were charged with the murder of Mst. Mustafa Jan and for causing gunshot injuries to two other individuals during an incident arising from a quarrel over children, for which a counter-version F.I.R. was also lodged. The Additional Sessions Judge initially granted bail to the accused in both cases, but the High Court subsequently cancelled the bail for the petitioners while maintaining it for another co-accused. The core legal question was whether a distinction in individual participation and common intention could be drawn at a premature stage to warrant differential treatment regarding bail when all accused were armed with guns and fired shots during the same transaction. The Supreme Court held that no such distinction can be drawn at a premature stage when each accused was similarly armed and participated by firing shots in the same transaction. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that common intention and individual roles in cross-versions involving firearm use during a single transaction must be evaluated at trial rather than for granting disparate bail relief.
- Can a distinction be drawn regarding individual participation and common intention at the bail stage when all accused persons were armed with guns and fired shots during the same transaction?
- Whether bail granted by a trial court can be interfered with by the High Court in cases involving cross-versions of a murder incident?
- Is it appropriate at a premature stage of the case to assess the cases of co-accused separately based on the number of injuries attributed to them?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Farooq Nawaz, Rawail and Anwar Khan, petitioners herein, and Mowaz Khan father of Farooq Nawaz, are charged for the murder of Mst. Mustafa Jan and for causing gunshot injuries to Saeed son of 1dris and Noor Hussain.
2. The report of the incident was lodged on the same clay barely 45 minutes after the occurrence. On the same day a report of the counter-version was lodged by Muhammad Younas at the same Police Station ten minutes before the lodging of the first F.I.R. In which he charged Muhammad Idris, the first informant in the other case, his son Saeed and his maternal-nephew Qasim for causing fire-arm injuries to him.
3. Apparently the motive seems to be a quarrel over children sometimes preceding the present incident. According to the first version while Muhammad idris was inside his house alongwith his wife and nephew somebody called them out from outside and as the deceased went out of the house alongwith Saeed, they saw Nlowaz Khan and his son Farooq Nawaz armed with Topaks alongwith Rawail and Anwar Khan similarly armed who on seeing them fired their guns as a result of which Mst. Mustafa Jan was hit and she fell clown. At about this time Anwar Hussain and Saeed also came there who were next tired at by Rawail and Anwar Khan, and both of them were injured.
4. The offenders in both the cases were allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera.
5. Muhammad Idris, the complainant thereupon filed an application in the High Court for the cancellation of bail allowed to the offenders, and the High Court by its order, dated 28th of April, 1985 allowed bail to Mowaz Khan and cancelled it in regard to the others. It is against the cancellation of bail of those petitioners that leave is now sought.
6. While arguing the learned counsel was at pains to draw a distinction between the cases of Farooq Nawaz and Mowaz Khan as only one gun-shot injury was found on the deceased and the cases of Rawail and Anwar Khan in sharing the common intention when they had only caused injuries to two other persons namely Saeed and Noor Hussain. But we fail to see how at this premature stage a distinction could be drawn in regard to their common intention and the cases assessed on the basis of their individual participation when each one of them was armed with a gun and had fired shots during the same transaction.
7. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed.