Raza Muhammad and another vs The State
This is a criminal bail application filed by applicant Manzoor under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case relating to murder committed by an unlawful assembly with fire shot injuries. The core legal question is whether the applicant, to whom no effective role is attributed and whose liability is vicarious, makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that since no effective role was attributed to the applicant and his participation based on vicarious liability required determination at trial, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing required surety bonds, laying down the principle that where an accused's participation is based on vicarious liability without an active role assigned, the matter calls for further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.
- Whether an accused with no effective role attributed and facing allegations based on vicarious liability is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case involving determination of vicarious liability at trial fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- The instant bail application is pressed only in respect of applicant Manzoor . It is alleged that applicant Manzoor with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed murder of Suhno by causing him fire shot injuries, for that the present case was registered.
2. On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, applicant Manzoor has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr .PC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant Manzoor that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party and his participation in commission of the incident, if any, is only to the extent of his presence; therefore, he is entitled to grant of post-arrest bail as his case is calling for further inquiry .
4. Learned Addl.P .G for the State has recorded no objection to grant of bail to applicant Manzoor while learned counsel for the complainant has oppose d to grant of post-arrest bail to him by contending that he is vicariously liable for commission of the incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. No effective role in commission of the incident is attributed to applicant Manzoor; therefore, his participation in commission of the incident on point of vicarious liability obviously is calling for its determination at trial. In that situation, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for him that he is entitle d to grant of bail, as his case is calling for further inquiry .
7. In view of above, applicant Manzoor is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/-and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly .