SAEED AHMED KHAN Alias SHEEDO vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant was charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for facilitating his brother, the principal accused, in the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have provided transportation to the principal accused on a motorcycle but did not perform the act of firing, was entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Court observed that while the applicant was accused of facilitating the crime, the direct role of firing was attributed solely to the absconding co-accused. The Court held that the applicant's criminal liability, specifically regarding the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, required further determination through the recording of evidence at trial. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the determination of vicarious liability in the absence of a direct overt act of violence is a matter to be settled during the trial proceedings rather than at the bail stage.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the direct act of firing is attributed to a co-accused and the applicant's role is limited to facilitation?
- Does the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require further evidence before bail can be denied in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ORDER FAISAL ARAB, J.---1&2 Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applicant has been booked in Crime No.157/10 of Police Station Tando Jam under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The case against the applicant is that he facilitated his brother Shahid on the motorcycle and thereafter Shahid one after the other, killed two brothers of the complainant and then Shahid absconded. Applicant was though arrested. Bail has been sought for the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the F.I.R. Has been lodged after a delay of 12 hours which means after deliberations and that dead bodies were brought to the Hospital by unknown persons and these facts clearly show that it was an unseen incident. He next argued that the reason for committing of the murders is shown to be old enmity between the parties i.e. That the sister of the accused, who was married to deceased was killed by Tahir Hussain and therefore, the applicant along with his brother Shahid committed murder of Tahir Hussain and Zulfiqar Ali. He further argued that since direct role of firing at the deceased has been assigned to the absconding accused Shahid and not to the present applicant, in the circumstances, applicant may be granted bail. In support contentions he relied upon the ported as PLD 1972 SC 277, SCMR 1360 2003 SCM R 958, 4' Y-L-R1434, 2010 M LD 1749, 2010 PCr.LJ 280, 2010 SLJ 1213 and 2011 PCr.LJ 918.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand argued that it was the present applicant, who took Shahid on a motorcycle to both the places of incident and thus clearly facilitated accused Shahid to commit murder of two persons. He further stated that the incidents took place at 10-30 P.M when dead bodies were taken to the hospital and late in the night after the post mortem they were brought home and after getting them buried in the morning F.I.R. Was lodged at noon time, therefore, the delay is explainable and old enmity has also not been denied. He relied upon the cases reported as 1981 SCM R 1092, 1996 SCM R 1023 and PLD 1997 SC 347.
5. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General for the State has also opposed grant of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply has argued that the incident was clearly unseen as no independent witness has been examined though two murders have taken place in two stops of Tando Jam Town.
7. Keeping in view that the role of firing at deceased has been attributed to only absconding accused. Shahid whereas, the role has been attributed to the present applicant is that he took him on his motorcycle to the places of incidents his involvement under section 34, P.P.C. Will be decided after evidence is recorded in the matter.
8. In the circumstances, the, applicant is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000 and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. The Bail Application stands allowed in the above terms.
Cited by 1 case
- AMIR ZAMAN Versus State 2020 YLRN 17