ASANDAS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which cancelled the petitioner's bail in a criminal case. The petitioner was accused of inciting others to commit murder, with a specific allegation that a fatal hatchet blow was delivered by a co-accused at his instigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail where the petitioner was implicated in a murder case involving vicarious liability. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was justified, as there was sufficient material indicating the petitioner's role in instigating the attack. The Court affirmed that the petitioner was prima facie vicariously liable under the relevant penal provisions, rendering the cancellation of bail appropriate. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient material to establish a prima facie case of vicarious liability for a capital offense, the cancellation of bail by the High Court is legally sound and warrants no interference by the Supreme Court.
- Is a person who instigates a murder liable for bail cancellation under the principle of vicarious liability?
- Does the existence of sufficient material linking an accused to the instigation of a crime justify the cancellation of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail if a prima facie case of vicarious liability is established?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED. J.-The allegations against the petitioner is that he incited the other accused persons and a hatchet blow was given by Kauro accused at his instigation. On this allegation, a case was registered against him under sections 302, 148 read with section 149, P. P. C.
2. He moved for bail and was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge Sangarh. On the 6th November 1973, Ghulam Rawl Shaikh, J. Issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why his bail should not be cancelled.
3. ' In pursuance of this notice, the petitioner appeared and a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, by order dated the 20th June 1974, cancelled his bail. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that there is sufficient material to show that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the deceased was attacked and killed. On this fact, the High Court was perfectly justified in observing that the petitioner prima facie would be vicariously liable by reasons of the application of section 149, P. P. C. In that view of the matter, there is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Hilal Khattak vs State and another PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 252
- Hilal Khattak vs The State & another 2023 SCP 148, 2023 SCMR 1182, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 252, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 31
- Hilal Khattak vs The State and another 2023 SCMR 1182