MUHAMMAD SHAHID FAROOQ alias Si-IAHDA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence and grant of post-conviction bail pending appeal. The petitioner, Muhammad Shahid Farooq, sought release from imprisonment following his conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have engaged in ineffective firing and was found by the investigating officer to be unarmed, should be granted bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Court observed that the petitioner caused no injury during the occurrence, no recovery was made from his possession, and the investigating officer had explicitly noted he was unarmed. Furthermore, the petitioner had already served over two years in custody. The Court held that the issues regarding the petitioner's common intention and vicarious liability for the offences committed by co-accused were substantial questions requiring serious re-consideration at the final hearing of the appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, suspended the sentence, and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where the evidence regarding vicarious liability is questionable and the accused has served a significant portion of the sentence, bail pending appeal is appropriate.
- Is an accused entitled to bail pending appeal when the evidence of common intention and vicarious liability requires serious reconsideration?
- Does the absence of injury caused by an accused and the lack of recovery from his possession constitute grounds for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal where the investigating officer has found the accused was unarmed during the occurrence?
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Shahid Farooq alias Shanda petitioner-appellant has sought suspension of his sentence of imprisonment and release on bail during the pendency of his appeal before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court we have observed that admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged occurrence and he stood saddled with the responsibility of indulging in ineffective firing only. It is not denied that nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. It is available on the record that Muhammad Nawaz, S.-I. (P.W.14), the Investigating Officer, had found that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon during the occurrence. The petitioner has already spent more than two years in jail in connection with this case. In these circumstances the question regarding sharing of common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offence allegedly committed by his co-accused are questions which would require serious re-consideration at the time of hearing of the main appeal. This miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed, the sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court is suspended and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.