ZAFAR ALI vs STATE and another
The petitioner, Zafar Ali, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 405/2012, registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Fatehpur, District Layyah. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fired shots with a 12-bore gun at the complainant and prosecution witnesses, though these shots missed their targets and caused no injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the allegations against him were limited to ineffective firing and his vicarious liability remained to be determined at trial. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not accused of causing any injury to the deceased or witnesses, the matter fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the petitioner had been incarcerated since November 2012 and was a non-convict, the Court granted bail, establishing that bail cannot be refused based solely on vicarious liability without positive evidence of a specific role in the crime.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the only allegation is ineffective firing that caused no injuries?
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of vicarious liability without positive evidence of the accused's role in the crime?
- Does the commencement of a trial automatically preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Zafar Ali seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 405/2012 dated 11.10.2012 WS. 302/34, PPC registered at Police Station Fatehpur District Layyah.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he made firing with gun .12 bore towards the complainant and PWs which were missed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
4. Admittedly neither the petitioner is burdened with causing any injury to the deceased nor the fires made by him hit any PWs. Only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner according to the prosecution's own story. Whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the act done by his co- accused, would be adjudged by the trial. Court after recording of evidence. The petitioner, in the present case, was arrested on 26.11.2012 and since then he is continuously behind the bars. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Although challan has been submitted before the Court and trial has also commenced but mere commencement of trial is no ground to refuse the concession of bail if otherwise the same is made out. The petitioner is previously non-convict. Reliance is placed on case law titled as "Maryia Khan vs. The State and others "(2013 SCM R 49) and "Manzoor Hussain and another vs. The State" (2011 SCM R 902) wherein their lordship was pleased to hold as follows; "It would be seen that bail cannot be refused, on the basis of vicarious liability, unless it is shown through positive evidence that indeed co-accused played a role in the crime in question."
5. In view of the above, the matter to the extent of the petitioner has become one of further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature.