2017 PLP 116 (SCMR)
WAJID ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 116 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Faisal Arab, JJ |
| Parties | WAJID ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Faisal Arab, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 116 (SCMR) (WAJID ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hussain Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioner.
- Zahid Yousaf, Advocate Supreme Court for A.-G. KPK and Zahidullah, SI/IO, PS Badabair for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 9.9.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr. M/B.A. No.1724-P of 2016)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly
Accused was alleged to have fired at the injured-complainant, while the co-accused was specifically alleged to have fired at the deceased
Plea on behalf of complainant was that accused was not entitled to bail as the accused and co-accused had the common intention to commit murder of deceased
From the contents of the FIR, it could not be out-rightly said that there was a common intention between the accused and co-accused to commit murder
Prima facie the reason that provoked the incident was the repairing of a common wall
Question as to whether there was common intention between the accused and co-accused to commit murder could only be reached after the evidence in the matter on the record
Injury allegedly caused to the complainant by the accused was reported to be 'ghair jaifa'
Accused could not be kept behind bars for an indefinite period
Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail accordingly. Zahid Yousaf, Advocate Supreme Court for A.-G. KPK and Zahidullah, SI/IO, PS Badabair for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
The petitioner is an accused along with his brother Abdul Ghani in FIR No. 967 dated 01.11.2015 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Badhber, District Peshawar. In the FIR it has been reported that on the fateful day when the complainant and his uncle were busy in repairing the wall of their house, the petitioner and his brother armed with weapons came and the co-accused Abdul Ghani instantly fired at his father, who succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. It is also stated in the FIR that then the petitioner also fired at the complainant, who got injured, whereas his uncle ran from the scene of the crime to save his life. The petitioner after arrest applied for bail, which plea was rejected by the Trial Court. Petitioner's bail application before the High Court also met the same fate. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the only role attributed to him was that of causing fire arm injury to the complainant which is reported to be `ghair jaifa', i.e. not falling within the prohibitory clause therefore bail ought to have been granted to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner along with his brother came with the common intention to commit murder and the father of the complainant was fired upon and killed, therefore, bail was rightly declined to the petitioner. In support of his case, he placed reliance on the case of Munawar v. State (1981 SCMR 1092). In the cited case bail was declined to co-accused on the ground that there was common intention evident on the record.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case cited by the State counsel is not attracted as from the narration of the incident in the FIR in the present case it cannot be said that there already existed common intention to commit murder. He placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Irfan v. State (2014 SCMR 1347), Faqir Hussain v. State (2014 SCMR 1502), Inayat Khan v. State (1982 PCr.LJ 1000) and Muhammad Khalid Butt v. State (1993 PCr.LJ 1491) wherein there was absence of any material to prima facie establish common intention and, therefore, it was nature of injury caused by the co-accused that was made basis for grant of bail.
5. From the contents of the FIR, it cannot be out-rightly said that there was a common intention to commit crime. It prima facie appears that repairing of the common wall was the reason that provoked the accused. The conclusion that there was common intention can only be reached after the evidence in the matter comes on the record. So far as the role of causing injury on the person of the complainant is concerned, it is admitted position that the said injury was reported to be ghair jaifa. The petitioner in this view of the matter cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. In the circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for post-arrest bail. This petition is therefore converted into appeal and is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.300,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. MWA/W-7/SC Bail granted.