SOONHARO vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Soonharo, who is facing trial in Crime No. 69 of 2005 registered at Police Station Chak, District Shikarpur, under sections 302, 337-H(2), and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where he is named in the FIR but no fatal injury is attributed to him, and the specific role assigned is firing in the air while vicarious liability requires further determination at trial. The Sindh High Court held that since no injury was caused by the applicant to the deceased and the question of common intention and vicarious liability calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reasonable grounds do not exist to believe the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence. The court consequently allowed the bail application, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage showing absence of a specific overt act of causing fatal injury and debatable vicarious liability makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is named in the FIR but is not attributed any fatal injury to the deceased?
- Does the determination of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention at the trial stage make a case for further enquiry under criminal law?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the State counsel concedes to the bail plea and no reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,69 of 2005 of Police Station, Chak, District Shikarpur, registered under sections 302, 337-H(2), P.P.C.
2. ' The allegation against the applicant is that on 2-10-2005 at 0115 hours he being armed with a gun along with co-accused Danglo, Mehar, both armed with K.K., Adyo, Latif, both with T.T. Pistol, Ali with gun and two unidentified persons with hatchet and lathi came at the house of the complainant Imam Bux Chachar and co-accused Ali committed murder of Godho Chachar by making gunshot at him.
3. ' Bail application was moved before the trial Court which was rejected for the reason that applicant was named in the F.I.R. And that section 460, P.P.C. Would be applicable and by virtue of it's application every member of accused party is responsible for the acts of his companion.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of four hours, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant, enmity between the parties is established, the statements of P.Ws. Were recorded after 24 hours without any explanation or justification. He further submits that vicarious liability cannot be determined at this stage and the applicant has made out a case of further enquiry.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, the learned State counsel, submits that the role of firing was assigned to other co-accused and the allegation against applicant is of firing in air. The deceased got one injury attributed to co-accused Ali. The learned State counsel conceded to the bail plea raised on behalf of the applicant.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. ' The allegation against the applicant is presence at the time of murder of Godho Chacitar, firing in air and raising slogans. Though the applicant was allegedly armed with gun but has not caused any injury to the deceased. The presence of the applicant at the place of wardat and his involvement in the commission of the offence will be determined at the trial. The case requires further enquiry for the purpose of determination of vicarious liability and sharing common intention. From the material available on record it appears that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of non-bailable offence.
8. ' I, therefore, allow this bail application and release the applicant on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- KOHYARO TEGHANI Versus State 2021 YLRN 157
- MULO AHMED vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 1171
- WAZIR vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 646
- Mulo Ahmed vs The State