GUL MUHAMMAD alias GUL HASSAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Gul Muhammad alias Gul Hassan and another before the Sindh High Court, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and rioting. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to bail when fatal shots are not attributed to them and their vicarious liability requires further inquiry. The court held that since the fatal shots were attributed to other co-accused and the applicants were only alleged to have been present with firearms and making aerial firing, their case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, establishing the principle that where vicarious liability is yet to be ascertained and fatal attribution is absent, the accused make out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted when fatal shots are not attributed to the accused?
- Does making aerial firing without causing fatal injury attract further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is vicarious liability a ground for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The allegations as per F.I.R. 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 8-00 a.m. they were attacked by 14 persons armed with deadly fire- arms such as Kalashnikovs, rifles and guns etc. On the instigation of Rind, accused GuI Muhammad son of Ghulamullah and Kazim fired direct shots from Kalashnikovs 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 Kalashnikovs 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 Sr. 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.