Haji HAYDER and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons, Haji Haider and Mahmood, who were implicated in a murder case alongside a main accused, Meero. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) only placed them at the scene of the crime in a vehicle with the main accused, without attributing any specific overt act or fatal action to them. The Court held that, in the absence of specific allegations of overt acts, the application of vicarious liability and the existence of common intention required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicants, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution case against co-accused is limited to mere presence at the scene of the crime without evidence of an overt act, the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed overt act, warrant further inquiry into common intention for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to attribute a specific fatal act to them in the F.I.R.?
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Learned counsel says that the allegations against the applicants/accused per the F.I.R. Only show their presence at the scene of the crime along with main accused Meero, who is stated to have fired the fatal shot at the deceased. Per learned counsel the question of vicarious liability and common intention in the circumstances of the case would require further inquiry as no overt act has been attributed to applicants/ accused. He, therefore, prays that bail may be granted to them.
2. ' This prayer has not been opposed by learned State counsel. I have heard both the learned counsel.
3. ' Admittedly, the applicants/accused viz. Haji Haider and Mahmood are only alleged to be present in the Datsun pickup in which the main accused Meero was also present and thereafter accused Meero is stated to have killed the deceased Deedar Ali-by firing with his mouser. Hence the question of vicarious liability and common intention as far as the applicants/accused are concerned, in my opinion, would require further inquiry in the circumstances of the case.
4. ' Accordingly, I would grant bail to applicants/accused Haji Haider and Mahmood subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees Two lacs) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned 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.