SHARIF alias MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Sharif alias Muhammad Sharif, who was implicated in Crime No. 23 of 2002 registered at Police Station Johi under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of Muhammad Ibrahim. The core legal question was whether the applicant, to whom no overt act or active participation was attributed and who was allegedly empty-handed while accompanying the principal assailant, was entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the question of his vicarious liability would be evaluated after recording evidence. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is empty-handed and does not take active part in the commission of the crime, and the question of vicarious liability requires further inquiry upon evaluation of evidence, the accused makes out a case for post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused who is empty-handed and attributed no overt act is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the question of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry at the bail stage?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Applicant Sharif alias Muhammad Sharif is involved in Crime No,23 of 2002 registered at Police Station Johi, under sections 302, 34, P.P.C: for allegedly causing murder of Muhammad Ibrahim, It is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that no overt act has been attributed to the applicant, he was merely present alongwith assailant Khalid who has been ascribed the specific role of causing murder of the deceased.
2. While relying upon the case of Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCM R 1360, learned State Counsel does not oppose the grant of bail stating that the applicant in the instant case was empty-handed and did not actively participate -in the commission of crime.
3. Arguments advanced at the bar have been considered.
4. Bare perusal of F.I.R. makes it abundantly clear that the applicant was empty-handed. Admittedly he did not take active part in the commission of murder. Specific role has been attributed to co- accused Khalid, who is alleged to have fired upon the deceased. So far as the question of vicarious liability of the applicant is recorded, it is to be evaluated after the evidence' is recorded. At the moment case of applicant falls within the ambit of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For above reasons, applicant Sharif alias Muhammad Sharif is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.