2001 P Cr (PLP)

Hyder v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 70; Zulfiqar v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2242; Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 1996 SCMR 1654; Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCMR 1360 and Ghulam, Nabi v. The State 1996 SCMR 1023 ref. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicants. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State. The brief facts of the matter as per F. I. R. lodged in Crime No. 1 of 2000 with Police Station Pat Gul Muhammad District Dadu is that the complainant party had a dispute with the accused party inasmuch as Mian Baksh had been suspected of having illicit relations with Mst Mussrat wife of Yaseen who was brother of accused Yousif. Despite of a decision given by the Nekmards of their respective communities whereby Mian Bakhsh was proved innocent. Accused Yousif however, used to extend threat., of killing Mian Bakhsh. At about noon on 30‑5‑2000 the complainant accompanied by his sister son Mian Bux alias Mehboob (deceased), Nazir and Jaffar had gone to Tore Town from their village and were returning back on foot then at about 19‑30 hours Yousif. Gul Hassan, Abdul Rehman and Noor Nabi appeared from the bushes at a watercourse near village Sobho Klan Doltani. Out of them Gul Hassan was empty‑handed and the rest of the accused were armed with guns. Accused Gul Hassan instigated the other three co‑accused to kill the deceased he being their (Karo). Upon which accused Yousif fired at deceased which hit him on his chest and the shot fired by Abdul Rehman hit on his thigh, due, to which injure‑ the deceased fell down. Thereafter, all the four accused persons gave cries and asked the complainant not to come would be murdered. Then all the accused ran away towards northern side alongwith their weapons through the watercourse. Thereafter the complainant party saw that the deceased was lying dead. Upon which the complainant informed the villagers whereafter they remained with the dead body as night has fallen and next morning the complainant appeared at the police station and lodged the report. In support of the bail application Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi has submitted that the applicant viz. Gul Hassan and Noor Nabi have not been nominated in the F.I.R. as having fired at the deceased, since the role of Gul Hassan is merely confined to raising cries and instigating the others to kill the deceased, whereas Noor Nabi although armed did not fire any shot on the deceased. In the circumstances learned counsel has submitted that case of the applicant is one of further inquiry and hence prayed that the bail application be granted. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on Hyder v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 70, Zulfiqar v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2242, Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 1996 SCMR 1654, Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCMR 1360. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application on the basis that the applicants have been fully implicated in the crime in question and at this stage their involvement cannot be ruled out on the basis of vicarious liability.. He has relied upon Ghulam Nabi v. The State I have heard both the learned counsel. It is a settled principle of law that at the bail granting stage the material available on the record is to be sifted through in order to establish whether prima facie the applicants before the Court can be connected to the crime in question, and hence no detailed inquiry is to be conducted by the Court. In my view this case arises out of an admitted previous enmity as apparent from the F.I.R. itself. In the circumstances of the case where Gul Hassan was only empty‑handed and has been accused of instigating the others to kill the deceased and also Noor Nabi although armed with a gun did not fire any shot at all which is corroborated by the recovery at the scene of incident of two empties of shot gun cartridges, it cannot be ruled out that the applicants may have been falsely implicated. It is also settled law that mere presence of the accused at the scene of the crime is no ground to refuse bail on the basis of vicarious liability which of course would be proved or, disprove at the stage of the trial. So also it is well‑settled that the raising of I cries at the scene of the incident and instigation to commit the crime in I question is also to be decided at the trial with regard to vicarious liability. In the circumstances I would admit the applicants to bail provided' they furnish surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) each and P.R. Bond` in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicants shall cooperate with the police in the investigation. N.H.Q./G‑37/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.