GUL MUHAMMAD alias GULOO vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court filed by applicant Gul Muhammad alias Guloo seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the applicant, who was attributed a general role with a gun and whose case involved vicarious liability arising from a matrimonial dispute without any specific allegation of causing a fatal injury or recovery of a weapon, makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since fatal shots were specifically ascribed to other co-accused and no direct fire or weapon recovery was attributed to the applicant, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that where an accused is implicated with a general allegation of firing without specific attribution of a fatal blow or weapon recovery, and questions of vicarious liability arise, the case warrants the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an accused is assigned a general role of firing without any specific attribution of a fatal injury or weapon recovery?
- Does a case involving a matrimonial dispute where multiple accused are implicated with general allegations attract the rule of further inquiry?
- Can vicarious liability under unlawful assembly alone disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail when no overt act of causing injury is established?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Gul Muhammad has been arrested for an offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C.
2. ' According to F.I.R. There was matrimonial dispute between complainant Muhammad and his brother accused Muhammad Juman. Complainant's daughter Waziran was given in exchange for accused Muhammad Juman, but it is alleged that the latter avoided to give the hand of his daughter although he was approached several times. On 9-12-2002 at about 2-00 p.m. The complainant was sitting in his house alongwith his son Muhammad Paryal (the deceased) his sister's son Wali Muhammad, Muhammad Paryal's wife namely Mst. Qaima Khatoon, when Muhammad Juman, Muhammad Umar and Anwar armed with pistols, Asghar armed with hatchet and Abdul Aziz, Guloo, Aslam and Mitho armed with guns came there. Muhammad Juman abused the complainant as to why he was complaining against him to the people. He fired from his pistol at Muhammad Paryal which hit him near right eye brow and Anwar also fired on Muhammad Paryal which hit him under the chin. The others fired from their guns. The assailants then went away. Muhammad Paryal was shifted to Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That Mst. Arbab had instigated others.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Azizul Haq Solangi learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ali Azher Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to matrimonial dispute between the two brothers a large number of accused have been involved and even though this is a broad daylight incident; there is no specific allegation against the 'applicant Gul Muhammad of making a direct fire at Muhammad Paryal. According to him, the vicarious liability of applicant calls for further enquiry. He relied upon the cases of Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (1996 SCM R 1654), Mumtaz Hussain v. The State (1996 SCM R 1125) and Abdul Khalil v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 198).
5. ' Mr. Ali Azher Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General opposed the bail on the ground that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R., the P.Ws. Have involved him in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And this is a premeditated murder, therefore, it is too early to say that the case of applicant would require further enquiry.
6. ' From the perusal of material on record it is clear that the matrimonial dispute between two brothers is admitted. The incident took place during day time and fatal shots are specifically ascribed to Anwar and Muhammad Juman. No doubt presence of the applicant with gun is manifest from these pieces of evidence, but neither the complainant nor the witnesses have alleged that he made a direct fire at the deceased or complainant party. There is a general version that he was amongst those who made fires. No recovery of any fire-arm has been made from him.
7. In these circumstances the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above, give full support to the case of the applicant.
8. ' Applicant's case is of further enquiry, the bail plea is, therefore, accepted and the application is allowed. Applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.