JEHANGIR Alias BADSHAH vs The STATE
This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case. The petitioner, along with three others, was charged under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an armed attack on the complainant and his brothers. The prosecution alleged that the group arrived armed, fired shots resulting in one death and one injury, and that the petitioner personally assaulted a victim with the butt of his pistol. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of a pre-concerted attack. The Supreme Court held that because the accused acted in concert and the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were prima facie applicable, the attack was pre-planned and executed without immediate provocation. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the petition, affirming that bail is not appropriate where prima facie evidence of common intention and active participation in a violent crime exists.
- Does the presence of a pre-concerted attack involving multiple armed individuals justify the denial of bail?
- Are the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prima facie attracted when an accused participates in a joint armed assault?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner and three others are involved in a case registered under sections 302 and 307, read with section 34, of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore District. The allegation against him is that in the afternoon of 29-3-1986, at 2 p.m., he together with his companions, all carrying fire-arms, went to the shop of Ahmad Din and his brothers Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Munir. The petitioner had a pistol with him. On seeing them Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Bashir tried to run away. Muhammad Munir climbed on the roof of an under-construction house. One of the companions of the petitioner fired at him. Muhammad Munir was hit in the head and he died instantaneously. Another companion of the petitioner fired at Muhammad Bashir who was .Hit in the leg. The petitioner hit the butt of his pistol on the head of Ahmad Din and told him not to come near. The motive for the attack was stated to be an incident which had taken place on the day prior to the occurrence. It was alleged that a brother-in-law of Muhammad Munir had snatched away the pistol of Navid, a companion of the petitioner. Later, after Navid had tendered an apology on the intervention of respectables of the locality, the pistol was returned to him.
3. The allegations made against the petitioner and his companions show that they had come armed to the scene of occurrence. The firing was resorted to without any immediate provocation.
The petitioner too participated in the occurrence by hitting Ahmad Din with his pistol. It is a case of pre-concerted attack and the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code are prima facie attracted here. It is, therefore, not a fit case where we should interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- NABI BUX alias NABU vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1531
- HYDER vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 70