WARYAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Waryam, who is facing trial for offences under sections 302, 324, 452, 427, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the only allegations against him were his presence at the scene of the crime and firing in the air, without any specific overt act or injury attributed to him regarding the deceased. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry into his guilt, specifically regarding his vicarious liability and the sharing of a common intention with the other accused. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, determining that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was guilty of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle laid down is that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without a specific overt act, warrants further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without a specific overt act, entitle them to bail?
- When does a criminal case require further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail where no specific injury is attributed to them despite allegations of being part of an armed group?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. 'NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.--- Granted subject to all just exception.
2. The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,38 of 2005 of Police Station Rustam for offences under sections 302, 324, 452, 427, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegations against the applicants is that he was the member of party who murdered Atta Muhammad and the allegation against the applicant is firing in the air.
3. ' The applicant has moved bail application before the trial Court which was dismissed on 31-3- 2006 on the ground that accused came inside the house of the complainant duly armed with weapons and they were prima facie involved in the capital charge.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no overt act has been attributed towards the applicant and there is no allegation of firing and causing any injury to the deceased against the applicant. He further submits that mere presence of applicant is not enough to disentitle him from concession of the bail.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo, learned State counsel has conceded grant of bail on the ground that no overt act has been attributed towards the present applicant.
6. ' From the F.I.R. The only allegation against the applicant is his presence at the time of murder and firing in the air and no other overt act has been attributed towards the applicant.
7. ' In the F.I.R. Was alleged that the applicant was armed with gun but not caused any injury to the deceased. The presence of the applicant at the place of Wardat and his role in the commission of the murder of the deceased will be decided at the stage of trial. Since the only allegation against the applicant is his presence at the place of Wardat and firing in the air, the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant. Case also requires further inquiry with regard to determine the vicarious liability and sharing common intention of the applicant with the other accused.
8. ' From the above allegation it appears that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. ' I, therefore, allow this bail application. The applicant shall be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 8 cases
- MUHAMMAD ACHAR Versus State 2018 YLRN 234
- MUHAMMAD KHAN alias MUHAMMAD BUX vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 69
- ARSHAD vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 1749
- SHAHID ALI DHAREJO and another vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 1601
- UMED ALI vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 1091
- ALI HASSAN vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 700
- SONO GHANGHRO vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 537
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 102