2001 PLP 341 (YLR)

Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCMR 454 and Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCMR 1360 ref. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Muhammad Azim Panhwar State Counsel. The present applicant seeks bail in Crime No. 10 of 2000 Police Station Johi under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C., who has been sent up to face trial by way of challan submitted on 10-3-2001 alongwith co-accused Hassan, Shah Nawaz. Muhammad Ramzan and Haji Ali Hassan who is still absconder. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that only ineffective firing is attributed to the present applicant and the fatal shots are attributed to Haji Ali Hassan who is still absconder and no overt act is attributed to the present applicant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on case reported as Muhammad v. The State (1998 SCMR 454) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused who allegedly made ineffective firing and no injuries were attributed to him during the occurrence. He has further placed case reliance on the case reported as Faraz Akram v. The State (1999 SCMR 1360 & 1361). wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused who was ascribed the role of ineffective firing and the fatal shot was attributed to the two accused and the question of vicarious liability of accused could be determined by the Trial Court and the bail was granted. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Azim Panhwar learned State counsel has opposed to the grant of bail by contending that the vicarious liability is there on the part of the accused and he is not liable to the concession of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and has gone through the material available on record. I have also gone through the contents of F.I.R. and the impugned order. When asked as to whether the present applicant is attributed to ineffective firing the learned counsel for the State replied that it is true that the present applicant is only attributed having a gun in his hand and with ineffective firing and the fatal shot is attributed to co-accused Haji Ali Hassan who is still absconder. Admittedly the present applicant was having a gun and the deceased and other persons were at the mercy of the present applicant but he has not chosen to fire on them which is quite obvious from the contents of F.I.R. and other record available. Had he used the gun certainly the witnesses or other persons could have sustained injuries and from the present circumstances it appears. that the present applicant either has not used the gun or he has fired the shot which has gone ineffective and has vicarious liability is yet to be seen at the time of trial. Further, reliance can be made on the case-law reported 1987 SCMR 1906 wherein the question of vicarious- liability has been discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court and the bail has been granted to the accused on the ground that the vicarious liability can be adjudged at that time of trial. In the present case the present applicant has tired two shots which had gone ineffective wherein the fatal shots are attributed to co accused Haji Ali Hassan who is still absconder and this fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. I am being fortified by the law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and in view of the law of the Honourable Supreme Court and the admitted fact that no overt act is attributed to the present applicant and his vicarious liability is the question which can be thrashed out at the time of trial. The present applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H. B. T./A-190/K Bail granted.