Haji HAYDER Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons, Haji Haider and Mahmood, who were implicated in a criminal case alongside a main accused, Meero, for the murder of the deceased, Deedar Ali. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicants, who were only alleged to have been present at the scene of the crime in a vehicle with the main accused, could be granted bail given the absence of any specific overt act attributed to them in the First Information Report. The Court observed that the main accused was the individual alleged to have fired the fatal shot, while the applicants were merely present. Consequently, the Court held that the applicability of vicarious liability and common intention regarding the applicants required further inquiry. Finding that the case against the applicants fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted bail to both applicants, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed overt act, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- When does the question of vicarious liability and common intention warrant further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
ORDER
1. Learned counsel says that the allegations against the applicants/accused per the F.I.R. only show their presence at the scene of the crime along with main accused Meero, who is stated to have fired the fatal shot at the deceased. Per learned counsel the question of vicarious liability and common intention in the circumstances of the case would require further inquiry as no overt act has been attributed to applicants/accused. He, therefore, prays that bail may be granted to them.
2. This prayer has not been opposed by learned State counsel.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel.
4. Admittedly, the applicants/accused viz. Haji Haider and Mahmood are only alleged to be present in the Datsun pickup in which the main accused Meero was also present and thereafter accused Meero is stated to have killed the deceased Deedar Ali by firing with his mouser. Hence the question of vicarious liability and common intention as far as the applicants/accused are concerned, in my opinion, would require further inquiry in the circumstances of the case.
5. Accordingly, I would grant bail to applicants/accused Haji Haider and Mahmood subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two lacs) each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. H.B.T./B-14/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- ZULFIQAR alias BADNA vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 1421