ZAKIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Zakir, in connection with F.I.R. No. 46 of 2000, registered under sections 302, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner accompanied co-accused persons who entered a house, resulting in the fatal shooting of the deceased, Muhammad Iqbal. The core legal question was whether, given that the petitioner was not attributed with the fatal shot and the main accused was initially unknown, the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased and that his vicarious liability remained a matter for the trial court to determine. Holding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not alleged to have caused direct injury and vicarious liability is contested, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case against them rests on vicarious liability and no direct injury is attributed to them?
- Does the absence of a specific motive and the initial registration of a case against unknown persons constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Criminal case F.I.R. No,46 dated 28-1-2000 under sections 302/452/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Saddar Okara, on the report of Sultan Ahmad. According to the complainant, Muhammad Iqbal, his nephew, resided with him. On 27-1-2000, the complainant and others were asleep in their residential house, when at about 11-15 p.m. Certain unknown persons knocked at the door. Muhammad Iqbal opened the door of the room when four persons started grappling with Muhammad Iqbal. One of the accused carried whip, who was caught hold of by Muhammad Iqbal when another person having white beard fired with pistol at him. The unknown accused fled from the spot. Muhammad Iqbal died while being removed to hospital.
2. Subsequently, Muhammad Yar alias Khuda Yar was found to be the accused who had fired at the deceased. The allegation against Zakir was that he had also accompanied his co-accused at the relevant time.
3. Zakir seeks post-arrest bail in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was registered against unknown persons, but subsequently Muhammad Yar and petitioner and others were implicated in the case as the accused. It was submitted that the main accused to whom fatal shot was attributed was known to the complainant party but surprisingly, he was not named in the first information report. It was submitted that offence under section 397, P.P.C. Was deleted from charge-sheet and case of the petitioner became that of grant of bail on account of the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution, which did not relate to causing any injury to the victim. It was also submitted that the petitioner had no motive to commit offence or to join hands with his co-accused and case of the petitioner as such was that of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and have seen the record. The case was registered against certain unknown persons with the allegation that they grappled with Muhammad Iqbal and that Muhammad Iqbal caught hold of one of them where after a person with white beard fired at the victim Muhammad Iqbal. Muhammad Yar alias Khuda Yar has been found to be the person who had shot at the deceased. Petitioner admittedly did not cause any harm to the deceased and his vicarious liability, if any, would be determined by the trial Court in appropriate proceedings. For the present his case is considered to be that of further inquiry.
6. Petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.