NIAZ ALI SHAH vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from FIR No. 466. The core legal question was whether an accused person whose mere presence is recorded at the crime scene carrying a weapon without attribution of any specific injury is entitled to post-arrest bail, and whether the question of vicarious liability and common intention can be decided at the bail stage. The court held that the petitioner was merely shown as a silent spectator without using his weapon, that a wide net appeared to have been cast to involve all male family members, and that the question of vicarious liability requires recording of evidence during trial. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that the question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention cannot be conclusively decided at the bail stage when only mere presence is attributed, making the case one for further inquiry.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when only mere presence without active attribution of injury is recorded in the FIR?
- Can the question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention be decided at the bail stage?
- Does the mere carrying of a weapon without using it during an occurrence disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMS!, J.---The petitioner Niaz Ali Shah son of Sangeen Shah prays for his release on post arrest bail in case FIR No,466, dated 19-7-2013, registered under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. With police station Hanjarwal, Lahore.
2. In the occurrence, as reported through the instant FIR, the petitioner was shown to be armed with a pistol whereas his other family members booked in the instant case had fired at Azhar Khan and killed him whereas Ghani ur Rehman also received injuries.
3. Parties heard and record-perused.
4. As is evident from the perusal of the record mere presence of the petitioner Niaz Ali Shah has been recorded in the crime report A without attributing any injury either .To the deceased or to the injured person. In this connection learned counsel for the complainant while relying upon the cases of Muhammad Yousaf Butt v. P.C. Abdul Lateef Shar etc. (2012 SCMR 1945), Dhani Bux etc. v. The State etc. (1989 SCMR 239), Arshad v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 1749), Umar Hayat etc. v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 1058), Sher Ahmad etc. v. Jan Faqir etc. (2003 PCr.LJ 528) and Ghazi v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1532), has submitted that the petitioner had shared common intention with his co-accused and that motive is jointly attributed to the petitioner also, so he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. The case law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been examined and it is found that the said case-law does not bear identical facts as have been mentioned in the instant FIR, In all these precedent cases some role has been attributed to the accused of that cases where as in the instant case the petitioner has been shown as silent spectator, who although was armed with a weapon but has not used the same. This fact further goes to establish that the complainant of the case has thrown a wide net to involve all male members of the family of Sangeen Shah in the commission of the crime so as to what role has performed by the petitioner in the incident is yet to be ascertained in the trial of the case. The question of vicariously liability and sharing of common intention in the incident cannot be decided at bail stage as the same needs evidence. The P. Ws. While making their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have also narrated mere presence of the petitioner at the spot. Keeping in view the above noted circumstances, the petitioner is found entitled for the concession of bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and petitioner Niaz Ali Shah is admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- GUL Versus State 2018 YLRN 226
- ABDUL HAMEED Versus State 2018 YLRN 225