2004 P Cr (PLP)
Haji HAYDER and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji HAYDER and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (Haji HAYDER and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/504/34
Accused were alleged only to be present in vehicle in which main accused was also sitting who thereafter killed deceased by firing with his mouser
Question of vicarious liability and common intention of accused persons would require further inquiry in circumstances of the case
Judgment & Decree
Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicants. Anwar H. Ansari for the State. 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. This prayer has not been opposed by learned State counsel. I have heard both the learned counsel. 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. 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. H.B.T./B-14/K Bail granted.