1982 PLP 153 (SCMR)

Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 25th October, 1980, ANWARUL HAQ, C J.‑The petitioner is aggrieved by an order made by a ~learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 27th of August, 1980, whereby bail has been granted to respondents Manzoor and Maqbool during the pendency of a case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 34 thereof relating to the murder of one Ali Muhammad. According to the prosecution allegations the two respondents took the deceased in their grip thus enabling their co‑accused Arshad to inflict as many as 13 injuries on him with a sharp‑edged weapon. The two respon dents were stated to be empty‑handed at that time. The learned Judge the Court has taken the view that, "the three injuries on the hand of the deceased, prima facie, could not have been inflicted if he was secured by two persons. In this view of the matter, it is a case for further inquiry". It is submitted by Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the High Court should not have entered upon an apprecia tion of evidence at this stage, and should have only focussed its attention on the fact that according to the allegations, in the F. I. R. ingredients of common intention on the part of the two respondents were fully present. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has referred us to 1qbalur Rehman v. The State (P L D 1974 S C 83), Mst. Barkat Bibi v. Gulzar and another (1979 S C M R 65) and Hakim Ali and 3 others v. The State (1979 S C M R 114). After persuing the F. I. R. as well as the order made by the High Court, and considering the submissions made by Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad, we have formed the view that this is not a fit case for our interference. It is true that at the stage of deciding the question of bail, the Court is not to enter upon a detailed appreciation and examination of the evidence, but it is also clear that the question cannot be decided in vacuum, and the Court has to look at the material available when the bail is applied for. Now, in the present case, result of the medico‑legal examination of the deceased was available, and the learned Judge in the High Court could not have refused to look at it. As the two respondents were empty handed. He was perfectly justified in drawing tentative conclusion as to the part alleged to have been played by them in the transaction, which resulted in the death of Ali Muhammad. His observation that the question of the application of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code the case of the respondents needs further inquiry is not open to exception. As a result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed