Bail Principles in Murder Cases: “Further Inquiry” and Vicarious Liability

Panel: Riaz Ahmad, J.

This case, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3318/B of 1984, decided on December 9, 1984, involves Nawab Khan and another as Petitioners against The State as the Respondent. The petitioners were represented by Dr. Khalid Ranjha and Muhammad Akbar Tarar, while Muhammad Aslam appeared for the State. The core issue addressed by the court was the principles governing the grant or refusal of bail in murder cases, specifically under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Penal Code, read with Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that bail in murder cases should not be granted on “laboured pretexts” such as the concept of “further inquiry,” “ineffective firing,” or “divisibility of evidence”. The philosophy behind granting or refusing bail was discussed, with the court highlighting the importance of not pre-empting or usurping the trial court’s jurisdiction to make considered findings after appraising the evidence.

The court noted that merely because the firing attributed to the petitioners was ineffective, this does not provide a basis to conclude that there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are guilty of the offense. The principles of vicarious liability were fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The court stressed that while not completely denying bail, its emphasis was on adhering to the well-known and established principles governing bail as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the High Court on numerous occasions. Ultimately, the court, judging the case from a

prima facie angle, found that the petitioners did not deserve the grant of bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed

Download PDF