DEEDAR HUSSAIN vs SHAHID and 3 others
This criminal miscellaneous application arises out of an order passed by the trial court granting pre-arrest and post-arrest bail to various co-accused in a murder case. The core legal question is whether bail granted to co-accused who were not attributed any fatal injuries or specific overt acts, but were merely alleged to be present with weapons or firing in the air during the incident, should be cancelled. The Sindh High Court held that the case of the respondents was identical to another co-accused whose post-arrest bail was not effectively challenged, and that mere presence and general allegations without specific overt acts create a scope for further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that where accused persons are not attributed any fatal injury or overt act causing harm, their mere presence coupled with mitigating circumstances warrants the continuation of bail for further inquiry.
- Whether bail can be cancelled when no specific overt act or fatal injury is attributed to the accused?
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime justify further inquiry into their guilt?
- Should bail be refused to co-accused whose cases are identical to another co-accused who already enjoys bail?
ORDER
1. ' In the incident, accused Sadoro is only attributed the fatal gun shot injury to the deceased namely Qabool Muhammad. As far the rest accused challaned in the case namely Abdul Majeed, Shahid, Manzoor and Wazir, the allegation against them is that accused Abdul Majeed and Shahid were armed with hatchets while accused Manzoor and Wazir had guns at the time of incident.
2. Admittedly, all these four accused are not alleged to have caused any injury to anyone and there is no overt act alleged against them. The accused Abdul Majeed was granted post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court while the remaining co-accused Shahid, Manzoor and Wazir respondents Nos.1 to 3 to this Criminal Miscellaneous Application were granted pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has frankly stated that bail granted to co-accused Abdul Majeed as he was allowed bail after remaining in custody. His attention was drawn to the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah and another reported in 1986 SCM R 1380, whereafter the learned counsel for the applicant feebly argued and has stated that he has filed present application at the instructions of the applicant. The learned counsel, however, agreed that the case of co-accused Abdul Majeed and respondent Shahid is exactly identical, while the cases of respondents Manzoor and Wazir he agreed were not different from the cases of co-accused Abdul Majeed and Shahid.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, Advocate appearing for the respondents argued that the respondents were not attributed any overt act. There was no allegation against them except mere presence, which in view of the enmity between the parties calls for further enquiry into the guilt of the respondents. He relied upon 1996 PCr.11 1422.
4. ' Mr. G.A. Shahani, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh has supported the order of the learned trial Court granting bail to three respondents.
5. Admittedly, the case of co-accused Abdul Majeed and the case of the respondents is not distinguishable. The respondents are only alleged to be present at the place of incident. Nothing has been attributed against them except firing in the air by the respondents Manzoor and Wazir.
6. Such allegation like an allegation of instigation creates scope of further enquiry into the guilt of the accused, so charged. I have gone through the material placed on the record and the impugned order, dated 18-4-2000 of the learned trial Court. There appears nothing wrong in the order which is hereby maintained. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,93 of 2000 is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUNEER AHMED vs Chaudhary ILTAF HUSSAIN,and another 2003 PLD Karachi 332