Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application No. 1904 of 1986, decided on 18th January, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1898) Ss. 302, 307 &34‑‑Bail‑‑No overt act attributed to accused‑‑Complainant opposing grant of bail and contending that it was a case of vicarious liability and co‑accused after getting bail had not attended Court‑‑Case appearing to be of further inquiry as vicarious liability could not be attributed to accused‑‑Accused in custody for last one and a half year and trial not concluded‑‑Bail granted.
Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.
A.A. Mohammadally, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Syed Nizamuddin is the first informant. It is stated that there are two hotels, in Keamari. Salahuddin is bearer in one of the hotels. He is stated to have served tea to driver on 22‑7‑1985 but the crockery was not returned. Salahuddin demanded the crockery from the customer who stated that he had given the same to a bearer of the adjoining hotel. Hot words were exchanged between the parties but the matter was settled. On the same day at about 10‑00 p.m. it is alleged that Salahuddin went towards the parking place and then he returned back and disclosed to his proprietor that present applicant Muhammad Siddiq and one unknown person had given him injuries by pipe on his head and arm. Thereafter, another incident took place and Yaqoob fired at Haji Sadiq as a result of which he died. Co- accused Yaqoob was admitted to bail on ground of health. There are two injuries on the person of Salahuddin. They are simple in nature. No overt act has been attributed to the present applicant in the first information report. He had not instigated the co‑accused. The learned counsel for the complainant had opposed the application and stated that it is a case of vicarious liability and the co‑accused after getting the bail has not attended the case.
I am clear in mind that it is a case of further enquiry as at present vicarious liability cannot be attributed to the present applicant. He is in custody for the last 1‑1/2 years and the trial has not yet concluded.
The learned A.A.‑G. has not opposed the bail application. The applicant is admitted to bail, if he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously. It is the grievance of counsel for the complainant that I the applicant and the co‑accused will use delaying tactics. The trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail if the applicant or the co‑accused delaying tactics in the matter.
Any observation on the merit of the case is not binding on the trial Court.
M.Y.H./M‑46/K Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer