Shabir Alias Ghulam Shabir vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged in a case originally registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, later converted to Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following the death of the victim. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not alleged to have committed any overt act and was merely accompanying the principal accused, was entitled to bail given the prolonged pre-trial incarceration and lack of progress in the trial. The Court held that since no specific overt act was attributed to the applicant and the issue of vicarious liability required evidence to be established, the applicant's continued detention without the framing of a charge for several years constituted a ground for relief. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing that the absence of overt acts and the significant delay in trial proceedings warrant the exercise of discretion in favor of the accused, subject to the provision of solvent surety.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no specific overt act is attributed to them in the FIR?
- Does the lack of progress in trial proceedings and the failure to frame a charge justify the grant of bail?
- Can vicarious liability be determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J. - The brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR, by the complainant, Lashkeri are that while his father deceased Hamal was admitted in the hospital after being injured in a clash with, Jatois, the applicant along with Hazari Jatoi came to the hospital.
Hazari Jatoi was armed with a pistol, whereas the applicant the co-accused Ali Hassan were empty handed, lt is further alleged that Hazari fired direct shot at the father of the complainant, who suffered head injury. FIR was initially lodged u/s. 324, PPC however since the father of the complainant later expired as a result of the head injury caused by Hazari, the case was converted into 302, PPC.
2. The learned counsel submits that no overt acts have been assigned to the applicant. Admittedly the applicant was not armed and has been, merely stated to be accompanying Hazari in the hospital. The learned counsel submitted that it is a fit case for further enquiry into the guilt of the applicant. He points out that the applicant was arrested way back in July, 2000 and is in custody since then however no progress has been made in the case and even charge has not been framed. He pleads for grant of bail to the applicant in the circumstances.
Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro for State concedes to the above.
3. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant. According to the FIR the applicant has merely accompanied Hazari Jatoi who fired and caused the fatal injury. Insofar as the question of vicarious liability is concerned the same can be established only after recording of evidence. The applicant is in custody since 18.7.2000. The case has made no progress inasmuch as even charge has not been framed, ln the circumstances I am inclined to admit the applicant to bail. The applicant is granted bail in the above case upon his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Two lac) & PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.