MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus MUNAWAR HUSSAIN alias NIKKO
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, in relation to F.I.R. No. 612 registered under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who were attributed with ineffective firing and were allegedly part of an unlawful assembly, were entitled to pre-arrest bail despite arguments of vicarious liability. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the lower court correctly exercised its jurisdiction. The court reasoned that since the role attributed to the respondents was limited to ineffective firing and there was admitted enmity between the parties, the determination of vicarious liability constituted a matter for trial. Consequently, the case required further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, justifying the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the specific role attributed to an accused involves ineffective firing and there is admitted enmity, the question of vicarious liability is a matter for trial, warranting further inquiry and supporting the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does the allegation of ineffective firing by members of an unlawful assembly preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the determination of vicarious liability a matter to be decided at the stage of bail or at the time of trial?
- Does the existence of admitted enmity between parties justify further inquiry into the guilt of the accused for bail purposes?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Akbar, the petitioner has sought for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 by Mr. Jowad Abid Baig, learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide his order dated 19-3-2003, inc case F.I.R. No.612 dated 24-11-2002 under sections 324/48/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal.
2. The pre-arrest bail was extended to the respondents mainly on the ground that they were attributed, ineffective firing and that there existed enmity between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that they being members of unlawful assembly while armed with deadly weapons had come to the spot and resorted to the firing, so their involvement in the occurrence was there and in these circumstances they were vicariously liable for the alleged offence and so not entitled to the grant of said relief.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
5. The existence of enmity between the parties is admitted fact. The role of ineffective firing is attributed to them. The question of their' vicariously liability is to be gone into at the time of trial. Their case, therefore, required further inquiry into their guilt. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction in granting them the bail. The petition, therefore, is dismissed to limine.
H.B.T./M-1874/L Petition dismissed.