GUL MUHAMMAD alias GUL HASSAN and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons, Gul Muhammad alias Gul Hassan and another, facing charges of murder and other offenses arising from an incident on May 15, 2002. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that the fatal shots were attributed to other co-accused, while the applicants were only alleged to have been present and firing in the air. The Court held that since the fatal shots were not attributed to the applicants and their vicarious liability remained a matter requiring further inquiry, the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail. The Court laid down the principle that where the specific role of an accused is limited to presence and firing in the air, and the fatal injury is attributed to other co-accused, the question of vicarious liability constitutes a ground for further inquiry under the law of bail, thereby justifying the release of the accused pending trial, subject to the provision of adequate security.
- Does the mere presence of an accused and firing in the air, without causing fatal injury, constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry regarding vicarious liability in bail matters?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the fatal shots are attributed to other co-accused and the prosecution concedes that vicarious liability requires further investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The allegations as per are that on 15.5.2002 the complainant Muhammad Ramzan, his brother Muhammad Bux and uncle. Muhammad Khan and cousin Bashir Ahmed went for cutting bushes from their lands. At 8 a.m. they were attacked by 14 persons armed with deadly fire-arms such as Klashnikoves, rifles and guns etc. On the instigation of Rind, accused Gul Muhammad s/o Ghulamullah and Kazim fired direct shots from klashnikoves at Muhammad Bux, which hit him and he fell down. The others made fires in the air. Muhammad Bux died on the spot. The villagers on hearing fire-arm reports rushed to the scene and assailants went away.
2. I have heard Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Syed Mehboob Ali Shah, learned counsel for State; the latter has no objection to grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel contended that the act of making direct fires from Klashnikoves is alleged against Gul Muhammad son of Ghulamullah and one Kazim, who are Accused Nos, 8 and 2 respectively in the F.I.R. whereas the name of accused is mentioned at S. No, 14 in the F.I.R. He further submits that the only allegation against the applicants is of their presence with fire-arms and making fires in the air. Learned State counsel concedes that their vicarious liability is yet to be ascertained.
4. From the material on record, it appears that the fatal shots are not attributed to the applicants and only on account of their presence and making fires in the air, their vicarious liability would call for further inquiry. The application for bail is, therefore, allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs, three lacs each and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.