NAIK MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and anothers
The petitioner Naik Muhammad sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide F.I.R. No. 381 dated 10-12-1992 at Police Station Nasar Bagh. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry and the principle of consistency when the fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused and other co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 since the fatal injury was traced to a co-accused and the petitioner's firing was ineffective, and further noted that the principle of consistency applied as co-accused with identical roles had previously been granted bail. Consequently, the bail application was accepted.
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the fatal injury is attributed to a co-accused and the petitioner's firing is ineffective?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused whose co-accused facing similar allegations have already been admitted to bail?
- Can an accused charged under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be released on bail when the role attributed involves ineffective firing?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, Petitioner Naik Muhammad seeks bail in a case under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Which stands registered against him and nine others at Police Station Nasar Bagh, vide F.I.R. No,381, dated 10-12-1992.
2. The accusation against the petitioner is that on 10-12-1992 at about 3-45 p.m. He alongwith his co-accused had fired at the complainant Faridullah Shah and his companions Inamullah Shah, Hidayatullah Shah and Munawar and though the. Complainant and his two companions had escaped unhurt Hidayatullah Shah had lost his life having been hit by the shots fired by the accused Sher Ali.
3. Bail is urged on the ground of further enquiry and principle of consistency.
4. It is indeed a case of further enquiry within the contemplation of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. As death of the deceased is traceable to the firing made by Sher Ali and the firing attributed to the petitioner was ineffective. Besides, two co-accused of the petitioner charged with the same role were allowed bail by this Court on 30-10-1994, therefore, the principle of consistency is fully attracted.
Consequently, the application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 5 cases
- IMRAN and anothers vs The STATEand another 2015 YLR 831
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE 2009 MLD 779
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 72
- BASHIR AHMAD and others vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1440
- MAQBOOL AHMED vs THE STATE through Bakht Ali 2004 YLR 2275