SIKANDAR HAYAT vs STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration without trial commencement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of aerial firing, should remain in custody for an indefinite period due to the abscondence of the principal co-accused. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for over three years without a single witness being examined, and the trial had not progressed since the framing of the charge. The Court emphasized the principle of individual criminal responsibility, noting that an accused cannot be subjected to premature punishment for the acts of a co-accused or because a co-accused is absconding. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial progress, particularly when the specific allegation against the accused is limited to aerial firing, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.
- Can an accused be denied bail indefinitely solely because a co-accused is absconding?
- Does a significant delay in the commencement of a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused person responsible for the criminal acts of a co-accused under the principle of individual criminal responsibility?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner, through this petition, seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 242 dated 13.08.2004, offence under Sections 302/34 PPC registered at Police Station, Saddar Sangla Hill, District Nankana Sahib.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that the petitioner armed with Pump action 12 bore gun along with his brother Umar Hayat armed with rifle 8 M.M. came at the spot and started firing. The fire made by Umar Hayat, co-accused with rifle 8 M.M hit on front chek of the deceased Umar Hayat alias Soni whereas petitioner along with co-accused made aerial firing. The motive alleged in the FIR is that few days prior to the occurrence Umar Hayat deceased had a dispute with accused which was patched up on the intervention of the respectable of the locality and due to that grudge the accused had committed the occurrence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 11.07.2005 and is behind the bars for the last about three years and 2 months and the trial has not commenced till today, as only the charge has.been framed and not a single witness has been examined. Earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2006 in Crim. Misc. No, 9396-B of 2005 but more than two years and seven months has elapsed from the dismissal of earlier petition and there is no progress in the trial. Even otherwise, the only allegation against the petitioner is of aerial firing. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be behind the bars for indefinite period of time as premature punishment on the ground that principal accused Umar Hayat, real brother of the petitioner is absconding. It is settled proposition of law that each and every individual is responsible for his own act and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) preached this view in His last address that father is not responsible for the act of his son or daughter whereas the son and daughter are not responsible for the act of his/her father.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.