Dr. SOHRAB KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Dr. Sohrab Khan, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 395, 324, 147, 148, 149, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garhi Hassan, District Jacobabad. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, a political candidate, was present at the scene of the incident where co-accused persons fired upon the complainant party. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given that no active role of firing or causing injury was attributed to him, despite allegations of vicarious liability. The court held that since the applicant was not assigned any active role in the commission of the offence and the maximum punishment for the offences charged against the co-accused was five years, the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant, emphasizing that the issue of vicarious liability is a matter to be determined during the trial upon the recording of evidence.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when no active role in the commission of the offence is assigned to them?
- Should the question of vicarious liability be determined at the bail stage or during the trial?
- Does the absence of an active role in an offence involving multiple accused justify the grant of bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. FAISAL ARAB, J.---The applicant is booked in Crime No.8 of 2003, under sections 395, 324, 147, 148, 149, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), P.P.C., registered at Police Station Garhi Hassan, District Jacobabad. Applicant was candidate in election. The complainant alleged that he was supporting opposing party of the applicant. It is alleged that on the day of incident, the applicant along with co-accused persons came duly armed with deadly weapons and started firing upon the complainant party with deadly weapons. Only role that has been assigned to the present applicant is that he was present at the site with co-accused persons who fired upon the complainant party.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that no active role has been assigned to the applicant and even for injuries that have been caused by other co-accused persons to complainant party, the maximum punishment is five years.
3. Learned counsel for, the State opposes grant of bail on the ground that though no active role has been assigned to the applicant but at his instance other co-accused persons fired upon the complainant party which resulted in injuries. Question of vicarious liability is to be decided only when evidence is recorded. As no active role has been assigned to the applicant, therefore he is entitled to concession of bail. Interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the applicant in the circumstances is hereby confirmed on the same terms and surety.
Cited by 2 cases
- OSHAQUE ALI Versus State 2018 YLRN 54
- AMAN alias AMU alias AMANULLAH and another vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 1778