SABZAL alias SOZOO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Sabzal alias Sozoo, who was implicated in a murder case involving six accused persons. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the allegation that the accused fired shots while riding motorcycles, and the fact that the applicant's name was placed in Column No. II of the challan by the investigating agency, which initially decided to proceed only against other co-accused. The Court considered arguments regarding the difficulty of attributing fatal shots to specific individuals while in motion and the potential for vicarious liability. The Court held that while vicarious liability might eventually attach to the accused, such a determination is contingent upon the recording of evidence during the trial. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, finding that the case against him required further inquiry at the trial stage rather than pre-trial detention. The principle established is that the determination of vicarious liability in criminal cases is a matter to be adjudicated upon the recording of evidence, not at the bail stage.
- Can vicarious liability be determined at the bail stage before the recording of evidence?
- Is the placement of an accused's name in Column No. II of the challan a relevant factor for granting bail?
- Does the difficulty of attributing a fatal shot to a specific individual while in motion constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
ORDER
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused has urged that even though the name of the accused/applicant appears in the F.I.R. The fact remains that six people were involved in the alleged incident which has ultimately resulted in a person being killed. From these six persons who are accused, three each were riding on motorcycle. It would be difficult to appreciate that whilst driving the motorcycle and in a state of motion the accused fired upon the deceased which resulted in his death. According to the learned counsel the names of the present accused has also been kept in column No,II of the challan and they have decided only to proceed against Bakhat Ali, Afzal and Niaz Hussain. Accordingly he has relied upon the case of Akhtar Zaman v. The State 2001 YLR 2076 and Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCM R 1360.
2. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has drawn my attention to the fact that even if it is established through evidence that one particular person's pistol fired the fatal shot but there would be vicarious liability attached to the other persons who were involved in this incident. He does concede that upon the observation of Honourable Supreme Court, this can only come about after recording of the evidence.
3. ' Accordingly the bail is granted to the accused in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- IJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE 2006 MLD 546
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2177
- ALLAH BUX and anothers vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 626
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 1885