ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused person charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, who was present at the scene of the crime but was not alleged to have caused any injury or instigated the co-accused, was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was armed with a sota but performed no overt act, and the fatal injury was attributed solely to a co-accused. Holding that the petitioner's simple presence, unaccompanied by any specific criminal act, rendered his case one of further inquiry regarding his guilt and vicarious liability, the Court granted the bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is merely present at the scene of an occurrence without performing an overt act or instigating the commission of the offense, the question of vicarious liability remains a matter for trial, justifying the grant of bail pending the final adjudication of the case.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without any overt act, constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to attribute any specific injury or instigation to them in a case involving vicarious liability?
- When does the question of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall to be determined?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' A case under section 302/34, P.P.0 was registered against the petitioner and co-accused with Police Station Haveli Lakha, District Okara on the 1st of September, 1992 at the instance of complainant.
2. The allegation is that while the complainant and his father Pehiwan (deceased) were putting fodder to the cattle, Zaman alias Zamani armed with .12 bore gun, Zulfiqar petitioner armed with Sota and Muhammad Mansha armed with hatched came at the spot. Muhammad Mansha (co- accused) raised Lalkara that they had come to take revenge of murder of their brother Muhammad Amin, whereupon Zaman co-accused fired with his .12 bore gun which hit Pehiwan deceased in front of left side of his chest and succumbed to the injury there and then.
3. Admittedly the petitioner had neither instigated his co-accused Zaman to open fire nor he had caused any injury to the deceased or any other witness. No overt act is attributed to him. His simple presence with co-accused unaccompanied by any criminal act makes out a case of further enquiry into the guilt and possibility is not precluded that he may not have accompanied his co- accused. The question of vicarious liability shall be determined at the time of trial. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. This order shall not prejudice the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.
Cited by 3 cases
- GUL HASSAN alias HASSAN and anothers vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1491
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 2 others vs THE STATE 1999 YLR 1495
- NADEEM ARSHAD vs THE STATE 1995 MLD 1228