GHULAM AKBAR vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, Ghulam Akbar, who was charged along with another under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing at the injured prosecution witness and causing multiple firearm injuries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the direct charge in the First Information Report, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the existence of a motive. The Supreme Court held that given the direct attribution, the recovery of the pistol, and the motive to take revenge, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail at this stage. The petition was consequently dismissed, upholding the concurrent refusal of bail by the lower courts.
- Is an accused directly charged in the FIR with firearm injuries entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offence from the accused preclude the grant of bail at an early stage?
- Whether the existence of a strong motive affects the consideration for post-arrest bail in a charge under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 15-8-1989, arising out a bail matter of Ghulam Akbar petitioner who alongwith Riaz Hussain was charged under section 307/34, P.P.C. For twice firing at Ghulam Shabbir and causing him a number of fire-arm injuries all over his body. The motive for the offence was to take revenge of Sohanra, father of the petitioner who was killed by Ghulam Shabbir the injured P.W. The petitioner was arrested on 19-5-1989 and a pistol with which he committed the offence was recovered from him. Application for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate on 21-6-1989 and thereafter by the Addl. District Judge on 10-7-1989. His subsequent petition for bail before the High Court was also dismissed vide impugned order. We have heard the counsel for petitioner and have gone through findings of the Courts below. The petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. And after his arrest a pistol i,e. The weapon of offence with which he is stated to have effectively fired at Ghulam Shabbir, was recovered from him. The motive for the offence is also there. Under the circumstances we do not consider him as entitled to the grant of bail at this stage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SALIM Versus State 2018 YLRN 196