Pakistan Case Law
1996 SCMR 1125

MUMTAZ HUSSAIN and 5 others vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1996 SCMR 1125
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No, 7 of 1994
Date1994-02-12
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui
Authored bySaiduzzaman Siddiqui
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which refused bail to six petitioners charged under sections 302, 148, 149, 324, and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite allegations of sharing a common intention in a violent incident involving deadly weapons. The Supreme Court distinguished between the petitioners based on their specific roles. It held that three petitioners who allegedly caused fatal injuries were rightly denied bail. However, the Court found that the remaining three petitioners, who were only alleged to have caused simple blunt injuries despite being armed, presented a case requiring further inquiry regarding their common intention. Consequently, the Court granted bail to these three petitioners, establishing that the mere presence of deadly weapons does not automatically preclude bail if the specific role and intent of an accused remain subject to further investigation at trial.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the mere possession of deadly weapons by an accused during an incident automatically establish common intention for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted to specific co-accused in a murder case if their individual roles involve only simple injuries rather than fatal ones?
  • When does the question of common intention require further inquiry in bail proceedings?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302 PPC
  • Section 148 PPC
  • Section 149 PPC
  • Section 324 PPC
  • Section 337-A(ii) PPC
post-arrest bailcommon intentionfurther inquirycriminal liabilitydeadly weaponsbail adjudication

1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 17-1-1994, whereby, bail was refused to the petitioners in a case registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. And 324/337- A-(ii), P . P. C .

2. ' The petitioners along with 19 others are accused in F.I.R. No,174 dated 13-8-1993 registered at Police Station Jhand under sections 302/148/149 and 324/337-A-(ii), P.P.C. Out of 25 accused in the case, 13 were enlarged on bait by the trial Court while another six were granted bail by the High Court.

3. The present petitioners were refused bail by the High Court on the ground that they, prima facie, shared common intention as they were armed with deadly weapons at the time of incident in a place of worship. Out of them, Mumtaz, (petitioner No,1), Sher Afghan (petitioner No,2) and Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner No,3) were rightly refused bail in the case by the High Court as they allegedly caused injuries to the deceased Siddique Umer in the case. The cases of the remaining accused, namely, Ghulam Raza, Ghulam Shabbir and Zafar Iqbal, however, arc distinguishable as in spite of being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like A rifle, gun and hatchet, they only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the P.Ws. Using the wrong side of their weapons. In these circumstances, whether they share common intention with those who caused death of deceased Siddique Umar needs further enquiry.

4. ' We, accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the State convert it into appeal and admit Ghulam Raza son of Ghulam Mohyuddin, Ghulam Shabbir son of Ghulam Yousaf and Zafar Iqbal son of Mehdi Khan to bail on condition of furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,25,000 by each of them to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Cited by 36 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.