INAYAT vs THE STATE
This petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the cancellation of the petitioner's bail by the High Court in a murder and murderous assault case involving the death of one person and injuries to eye-witnesses. The petitioner was alleged to have been armed with a .12 bore gun and to have fired at two prosecution witnesses, causing them injuries. The petitioner sought leave to appeal primarily on the ground of the rule of consistency, arguing that his case was at par with a co-accused who had been granted bail, especially since the allegation against that co-accused regarding firearm use was found to be false due to sharp-edged weapon injuries on the deceased. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's stance by establishing firearm injuries on the eye-witnesses attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim parity with the co-accused, and the High Court's order cancelling bail was upheld as being based on cogent and sound legal principles.
- Whether an accused person specifically attributed with causing firearm injuries to eye-witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, can claim bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused?
- Whether the cancellation of bail by the High Court is justified where the accused's role is distinguishable from a co-accused who was granted bail?
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner alongwith 5 others, was reported against for the murder of one Waris Ali and murderous assault on 4 eye- witnesses.
' Allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with .12 bore gun and fired at P.Ws. Riasat and Ilyas causing them injuries. The petitioner applied for bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala which was granted, however, on a criminal miscellaneous filed before the High Court, his bail was cancelled giving rise to the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that another co-accused of the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, who was allegedly armed with 7 mm rifle was allowed bail and case of the petitioner is at par with that of co-accused Muhammad Hanif. He further submits that prosecution case absolutely fails because the allegation levelled against the co-accused of the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, that he fired with 7 mm rifle was found to be false and injuries on the person of Waris Ali deceased, were caused with sharp-edged weapon. We have heard both the sides and gone through the file.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired at the eye-witnesses causing them injuries. The doctor, who examined the injured, found fire-arm injuries on the person of eye-witnesses. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is not at par with that of his co-accused Muhammad Hanif who was allowed bail earlier.
4. After having perused the order impugned we find cogent reasons have been given which are based on sound principles of law. No exception to the order of High Court can be taken. This
Cited by 1 case
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 150