MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Jameel, who was accused of involvement in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 342, 148, and 149 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged only to have performed aerial firing and raised a 'Lalkara' (exhortation), was entitled to bail given that the fatal shots were attributed to a co-accused. The Additional Sessions Judge had previously declined bail, misinterpreting the First Information Report regarding the petitioner's specific role. The Court held that since the petitioner was only ascribed the role of aerial firing and exhortation, his liability for the murder and injuries required further inquiry and probe at the trial stage. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasizing the necessity for trial courts to meticulously analyze the specific roles attributed to each accused in the First Information Report before passing orders to avoid judicial errors.
- Does the act of aerial firing and exhortation (Lalkara) alone, without causing specific injury, constitute a ground for further inquiry in a murder case?
- Is a trial court required to distinguish the specific roles of individual accused persons when deciding on a bail application?
- Can a bail application be granted when the primary role of causing death is attributed to a co-accused rather than the petitioner?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner, M. Jameel, seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,23 of 2000 on 16th of January, 2000 with Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala under section 302/342/148/149 read with section 34, P.P.C.
2. Allegation as contained in the First Information Report authored by one Shaukat Ali is that his brother Liaquat Ali and his cousin Tariq were going in their motor cycle rickshaw driven by his brother Liaqat Ali, when they were confronted with the petitioner and 5 others armed with various weapons. Petitioner was the first who raised a Lalkara exhorting his companions to finish Liaquat Ali as he has quarrelled with them few hours earlier, upon which onslaught was started by the petitioner with an aerial firing followed by fires of Rehman with his .30 bore pistol which hit Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Tariq on face and chest respectively. Once again when the witnesses came to rescue the injured, Rehman fired twice which hit Tariq and he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
3. Motive for the occurrence is stated to be an earlier fight at 4-00 p.m. Between Rehman one of the co-accused and his brother Liaquat Ali for expressing his inability to get some passengers in the rickshaw.
4. Post-arrest bail was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 11-5-2000 by holding that in the subsequent part of the F.I.R., petitioner has been alleged to have fired with his fire-arm at the complainant's brother and Tariq, therefore, discretion was refused to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lambasted the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala by stating that he misread the F.I.R. Totally. It was Rehman in the second round who fired twice with his pistol which hit Tariq and there is no ambiguity about his role and that the prosecution has not ascribed any role to the petitioner in the second round of firing or causing any injury to the deceased or the brother of the complainant. Learned counsel for the State has got nothing much to say but has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner facilitated the murder of Tariq and murderous assault upon Liaquat.
6. I have attended to the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. Petitioner has been ascribed only aerial firing exhorting his companions to finish Liaquat and Tariq. It has yet to be seen by the trial Judge when evidence comes on record as to how far the role of the petitioner facilitated others to commit the murder of Tariq and caused injuries to Liaquat. For the present only aerial firing is ascribed to him. Keeping all these facts in juxtaposition, petitioner has been successful in making out a case of further inquiry and probe, therefore, accepting his application for bail I exercise my discretion in his favour and allow him bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Member Inspection Team of this Court shall send a copy of this order to Mr. Rao Shafey Ali Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala that he should be careful in deciding cases by reading and understanding F.I.Rs, properly, so as to analyse the roles of each of the accused given by the prosecution, and thereafter passing proper orders, not to be rediculed by the bar, when his orders are impugned and come up for scrutiny.