Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: 498

(a) penal Code (XLV of 1860)  S. 34 Vicarious liability, principle ofMere presence at site of occurrence of a person, resident of vicinity or by chance happening to go there at relevant timeHeld, would not by itself lead to an inference of involvement in crime in absence of any act of incriminat ing nature, such as actual participation in crime by words or action. [Vicarious liability]. Chiragh Din and others v. The State P L D 1967 S C 340 ; Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmed P L D 1966 S C 658 ; Muhammad Naseer v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J 129 ; Ghulam Haider v. The State P L D 1978 Lah. 670 ; Muhammad Saeed Khan v. Abdul Ghafoor and others P L D 1966 Lah. 86 ; Noor Ahmed v. The State P L D 1971 S C 174 ; Ghulam Rasool v. Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others P L D 1971 S C 128 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ashraf and another P L D 1971 S C 316 distinguished. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 498 Bail, principles governing grant ofAnalysing of evidence at bail stage, extent and scope of.[Appreciation of evidence]. High Court, as Court of superior jurisdiction, has vide powers to grant bail to any person in any case whether there be an appeal or application under section 498, Cr. P. C. The only riders being that these powers are to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The principles that govern the granting of bail are also well settled. The Court at the stage of bail, while considering the question of grant or refusal of bail, has to examine the effect of all the circumstances of the case. When the allegations are vague and are not substantiated, the refusal to enlarge the accused on bail may not be correct in peculiar circumstances of that case. In such cases the High Court can rectify the wrong by passing an order warranted by facts of that case. High Court, of course, is not called upon in such cases to conduct a prelimi nary trial of the case ; considering the probability of guilt or innocence of the accused ; it would be exceeding its function if it does so in any detail but `it may incidentally have to analyse the weight of the evidence' against the accused `as 'a necessary part of its proper function.' It would be incorrect to say…