MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal case where the petitioners sought bail in connection with an altercation resulting in culpable homicide amounting to murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner Muhammad Hussain was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of age and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the co-accused who was released, as the petitioner was specifically alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased, and that advanced age alone at 70 years does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail in such circumstances. The court established the principle that parity in bail cannot be claimed when the factual role and attribution of injuries differ among co-accused, and age alone is insufficient for bail in serious offences.
- Whether advanced age alone entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can an accused claim parity for bail when his role is distinguishable from a co-accused who has been granted bail?
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.--According to the allegations of the prosecution the dupatta of the wife of Abdur Razak got accidentally stuck up with wangha carried by Abdul Ghaffar (P. W.), as he was passing by her through a lane. The complainant party took this as a deliberate act and they decides to avenge the insult. On the 8th October, 1975 at 5 p. m. Abdur Razak and Zulfiqar accused armed with larhis attacked Abdul Ghaffar while he was coming back to his village from the fields.
2. On his alarm his father Muhammad Siddiq (deceased) and hi, uncle Shah Muhammad (P. W.) reached the place of occurrence. In the meantime, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad A.I (petitioners Nos. 3 and 4) and Yasin (co-accused) also reached there and joined with petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in inflicting injuries on Muhammad Siddiq, Shah Muhammad and Abdul Ghaffar.
3. Muhammad Siddiq later on died of these injuries in the hospital.
4. The five accused persons applied to the High Court for bail. On the 26th March, 1976, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court allowed bail to Yasin only on the ground that he was not attributed to have inflicted any injury to the deceased and the application of the remaining co-accused was dismissed by him.
5. On verification from the record, it transpires that actually the case of Muhammad Hussain appellant is easily distinguishable from Muhammad Yasin, who was allowed bail by the High Court.
6. Muhammad Hussain is alleged to have caused injuries to Muhammad Siddiq deceased and on that ground, therefore, his case is distinguishable from Yasin. The mere fact that he is stated to be aged 70 years does not entitle him to the concession of bail.
Cited by 4 cases
- DHULAH KHAN vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 998
- NASRULLAH Versus THE STATE 2001 PCRLJ 972
- NOORUDDIN vs THE STATE 1995 PLD Karachi 518
- MUHAMMAD BUX vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 193