Shareef Vs The State etc

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR.

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Cr.M/BA No.170-P/2026.

Shareef vs. The State etc.

Date of hearing --- 30/03/2026. Petitioner by --- Mr.Faqir Hussain, Advocate. State by --- Ms.Humaira Gul, A.A.G. Nemo for the Complainant.

JUDGMENT

FARAH JAMSHED, J.- Petitioner Shareef, has approached this court for his release on bail in case FIR No.394/25 dated 22.03.2025, registered under sections 302/324/34 PPC at Police Station Badaber.

02.Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that on 22.03.2025, the local police of Police Station Badaber, upon receiving information about the occurrence, reached LRH, Peshawar, where the complainant, Huzaifa son of Kiramat Khan, while in an injured condition, reported that on the night of occurrence he, along with his

father Kiramat Ullah and cousin Muhammad Awais, was present at the place of occurrence.

In the meanwhile, the present petitioner along with co-accused Mujahid alias Soor and Mumraiz arrived at the spot duly armed with firearms, and resorted to firing with the intention to commit murder. Co-accused Mujahid and Mumraiz allegedly fired upon the father of the complainant, who sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to hospital, whereas the complainant himself sustained firearm injuries on both thighs. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a verbal altercation over a dogs’ fight. The report was recorded in the shape of Murasila and later converted into FIR as mentioned above.

03.Arguments heard and record perused.

04.A tentative perusal of record reveals that the accused/petitioner is directly nominated in the FIR for commission of the offence.

Although the specific fatal injury has been attributed to co-accused Mujahid and

Mumraiz. The petitioner is attributed a distinct role of causing firearm injuries on both thighs of the complainant. A tentative comparison of the contents of the FIR with the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner actively participated in the incident, and fled from the scene thereafter. The place of occurrence prima facie appears to be in front of house of deceased and complainant. The recovery of 11 crime empties from the place of accused party suggests that the accused party was duly armed and acted in concert. In these circumstances, there appear, reasonable grounds to infer the operation of common intention within the meaning of Section 34 PPC, and petitioner’s liability cannot be viewed in isolation.

Reliance is placed on Sidra Abbas1. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner prima facie falls within the ambit of Section 34 PPC.

It is well settled that where a criminal act is Sidra Abbas vs. State (2020 SCMR 2089)

committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention, each of them is liable for the act as if it were done by him alone. For attracting the said provision, it is not necessary that every accused must have caused the fatal injury; rather, what is material is the existence of a common intention, which can be gathered from the conduct of the accused and the attending circumstances of the case. In the present case, the presence and active participation of the petitioner, coupled with the role attributed to him, prima facie suggest that he acted in concert with the co-accused. Thus, even though the fatal injury is not attributed to accused/petitioner, his liability cannot be viewed in isolation. The principle of constructive or vicarious liability under Section 34 PPC can be taken into

consideration even at the bail stage where the accused appears to have acted in preconcert with co-accused. In this regard, reliance is

placed on Muhammad Ali Mahar2 and Abbas Ali3.

05.This view has further been reiterated in Mulo Ahmed4, wherein it is held that:

"allegation made in the F.I.R. had shown that all co-accused persons in a pre-planned manner had committed the murder of father of the complainant and shared common intention with principal accused and facilitated the murder... If several persons would unite with common purpose to do any criminal offence, all those who assisted in the completion of their object, would be equally guilty".

06.It is also pertinent to note that the parties belong to the same locality; therefore, the possibility of misidentification of the petitioner at this stage is ruled out. Besides, the medico- legal report reveals that the complainant sustained multiple firearm injuries, which prima facie indicates repetition of firing during the occurrence. Moreover, the recovery of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence, along with multiple crime empties Muhammad Ali Mahar & another vs. The State (2024 SCMR 1584) Abbas Ali vs. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1791) Mulo Ahmed vs. the State (2011 MLD 1171)

secured from the spots attributed to the accused persons, including the present petitioner, and their positive reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory, provide corroborative support to the prosecution version and further strengthen the reasonable grounds connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The petitioner has remained absconder for about six months, so being fugitive from law, he also loses some of his normal rights awarded to him under procedural and substantial law. Furthermore, challan in the case has already been put in Court inasmuch the case was fixed for prosecution's evidence when the record was requisitioned by this Court in connection with the instant bail application.

07.Prima facie, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence charged with; therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.

Resultantly, instant bail application is hereby dismissed.

08.Needless to mention that the above observations are merely tentative in nature for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application and same shall not in any manner prejudice the trial court which shall decide the case on its merits.

Announced.

(A.K.Khan, C.S)

JUDGE

(SB)Justice Ms.Farah Jamshed.