Muhammad Afzal vs State S — 2025 YLR 2239 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Afzal VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the applicant-accused were that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also caused firearm injuries to the complainant and his father---Applicant had been indicted for the murder of deceased along with his brother(proclaimed offender) and father, while sharing common intention---Admittedly, the applicant had only been attributed the role of firing at the instruction of his father, but at the same breathe, it had been stated that no fire could be made probably due to malfunction---Forensic Science Laboratory Report placed on record demonstrated that the pistol was in working condition, which prima facie negated the stance of the prosecution that the pistol did not fire---Above all, in order to ascertain and determine the common intention shared by the applicant, at this stage, it would be difficult not only for the trial Court, but for the High Court as well, unless trial was concluded and final verdict was rendered, thus in view of the above, the case of the applicant squared within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under clause (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C---Co-accused/father of the applicant had been admitted to bail by the High Court, who had been attributed the role of lalkara, instigation and abetment, whose case was obviously distinguishable---As far as abscondence of the applicant was concerned, it might be a relevant factor, while rendering the final judgment, but at this stage, abscondence could not be a sole reason for refusal of concession of bail, unless there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed an offence---Thus,mere abscondence could not be made the ground to discard the relief sought for as disappearance of a person after the occurrence was natural to avoid humiliation by his arrest and to avoid expected torture at the hands of police personnel---Bail application was allowed, in circustances.

Muhammad Afzal vs State S — 2025 YLR 2239 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR