ALLAH DINO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Allah Dino, who was charged alongside others for offences under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously rejected the bail application, citing the need to discourage tribal violence and heinous crimes. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the specific allegations in the F.I.R. and the evidentiary material available. The High Court observed that while the applicant was named in the F.I.R. and allegedly present with a gun, no specific fatal injury was attributed to him, and the primary acts of firing were assigned to other co-accused. The Court held that the applicant's liability, if any, would arise vicariously under section 149, and given the delay in the case and the possibility of false implication due to enmity, the applicant's case fell within the scope of further enquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that mere presence at a crime scene without specific attribution of injury warrants further enquiry for bail purposes.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime with a weapon, without specific attribution of injury, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Is the case of an accused whose liability is based solely on section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a fit case for further enquiry under bail provisions?
- Can a court deny bail based primarily on the societal need to curb tribal violence rather than the specific evidence against the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 25-5-1997 for offences under sections 302/147/148/149, P.P.C. The learned Incharge 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur rejected the bail application of the applicant on 23-12-1999 mentioning as under:-- "We are witness that in our society due to uncivilized tribal behaviour innocent persons and their families suffer henious result without any fault on their part and oftenly the blood of innocent victims are being washed out by the Sardars of the Tribe in shape of monitral gain leading to their own pockets, therefore, fate of such offences should not be treated on same scale of general criminal cases and Courts should put restrain upon such criminals to discourage their evil activities and to save and strengthens the bright values of society.
2. ' For the foregoing reasons I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants on the ground of further enquiry, therefore, application for bail moved on behalf of the applicants Shamir and Allah Dino Mehrs are hereby rejected."
3. ' The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the order of the learned Judge is based on misreading of the facts. There has been no role assigned to the present "'applicant. He has been .Involved falsely due to enmity which is admitted. There is delay of 8 hours in lodging of fatal injury is not attributed to the applicant. The parentage of the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. And he is also not resident of the village Alif Katcho but he is resident of Agha Rafiq Colony Sukkur. There is no recovery of any crime weapon from the applicant.
4. ' The learned A.A.-G. Opposed the grant of bail to the applicant as the applicant is stated to be armed with gun at The time of incident.
5. ' The F.I.R. Is dated 25-5-1997. The name of the applicant is certainly mentioned in the F.I.R. The allegation in the F.I.R. Is that Allah Wadhayo, Miro and Ali Hassan and others fired direct shots and as a result -Muhammad Moosa fell down. The accused went away; therefore, specific part is assigned to Allah Wadhayo, Miro and Ali Hassan. There is no specific allegation that Allandino applicant had fired or he caused any injury to any one. Although he is stated to be present with a gun but no injury is attributed to him. This is a case which is about three years old and fatal injury is not attributed to the applicant. His liability will be by virtue of section 149. It is quite possible that applicant may be present as the complainant alleges and it is equally possible that the applicant may have been wrongly involved because of previous enmity. As he did not cause any harm to anyone, his mere presence is not sufficient to establish his liability. It becomes a case where further enquiry is required. I, therefore, grant him bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2 lacs and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- INAM-UL-HAQ vs THE STATE 2005 MLD 1312