SIKANDAR HAYAT vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over three years without the commencement of trial proceedings, was entitled to bail, particularly when the primary allegation against him was limited to aerial firing and the principal accused was absconding. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the prolonged incarceration without trial progress amounted to premature punishment. The Court emphasized that an individual cannot be held responsible for the acts of another, citing the principle of individual criminal liability. The key principle laid down is that the continued detention of an accused for an indefinite period due to the abscondence of a co-accused or lack of trial progress violates the right to a fair and speedy trial, and that criminal liability remains personal rather than vicarious.
- Can an accused be denied bail indefinitely solely because a co-accused is absconding?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial constitute grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused person liable for the acts of a co-accused in the absence of evidence of shared common intention?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,242, dated 13-8-2004, offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Sangla Hill, District Nankana Sahib.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner armed with pump action .12 bore gun along with his brother Umar Hayat armed with rifle .8 mm came at the spot and started firing. The fire made by Umar Hayat, co-accused with rifle .8 mm hit on front chest of the deceased Umar Hayat alias Soni whereas petitioner along with co-accused made aerial firing. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. 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 respectables 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 11-7-2005 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 Criminal Miscellaneous 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 kept 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 (p.b.u.h.)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.