MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad, who was accused of murder under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being named in the First Information Report, given the specific allegations regarding his role in the incident. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that while the petitioner was present, no specific injury was attributed to him, and the allegation against him was limited to ineffective firing. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law governing bail. The Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where an accused is alleged to have played an ineffective role in a crime without causing specific injury, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the only allegation against them is ineffective firing?
- Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in a murder case constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal to grant bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 8th of September, 1994 at 6-00 p.m., a case under section 302/148/149 P.P.C. Was registered on the statement of Ahmad Khan against Muhammad, Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Ramzan, Hayat Muhammad, Sher Bahadur, Ahmed Nawaz, Munir and Atta Muhammad with Police Station Bachhran, District Mianwali. The accused while armed with .12 bore guns attacked and killed Muhammad Sultan at the spot. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner Muhammad was not given any effective role in the commission of crime. He was, therefore, entitled to the grant of bail. Bail application was opposed by the learned State Counsel.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and reading the record with care, we are of the opinion that a case for interference has been made out because no injury was attributed to the petitioner during the occurrence. It is alleged that he ineffectively fired. This was a case of further inquiry. The petitioner, is accordingly, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mianwali by converting his petition into appeal. The petition, thus, succeeds and is allowed.
Cited by 9 cases
- MUHAMMAD ACHAR Versus State 2018 YLRN 234
- Sherin vs The State etc 2016 PHC
- SHERIN Versus State 2017 YLRN 120
- MUNAWAR SHAH vs The STATE 2014 YLR 523
- PEHLWAN vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2604
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus State 2007 YLR 1877
- NABI BUX alias NABU vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1531
- WAZIR Versus THE STATE 2003 MLD 1990
- 2001 YLR 341 2001 YLR 341