Vicarious liability

It cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule of law that question of vicarious liability cannot be determined at the stage of bail — If in the circumstances of the case, it can be gathered that the accused pre-planned a scheme, hatched a conspiracy and in execution of that plan or conspiracy they participated in the commission of offence, the question of vicarious liability applies with full force but the circumstances of each case have to be looked into. Muhammad Ajmal v. Muhammad Naeem and 3 others 2001 SCR 164 (B)
Each criminal case has to be decided in view of its peculiar facts and circumstances — The authority in one criminal case has hardly any hearing on the other criminal case. Muhammad Ajmal v. Muhammad Naeem and 3 others 2001 SCR 164 (C)
Principle of applicability of vicarious liability at bail stage– Ordinarily at the bail stage the Courts refrain to dive deep to asses whether the element of vicarious liability exists or not, however, the rule is not inflexible. If in the circumstances of the case it can be gathered that the accused pre-planned a scheme, hatched a conspiracy and in execution of that plan or conspiracy they participated in the commission of offence then question of vicarious liability would apply with full force. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (A) 2000 P.Cr.LJ 974, rel.
Determination of vicarious liability at bail statem — There is no clog on the Court to examine the principle of vicarious labiality at the bail stage provided if from the FIR, the accused appear to have acted in preconcert and in pursuance of the common intention with the co-accused who caused fatal injury to the deceased and can be saddled with constructive or vicarious liability while taking into account section 34 of APC. Held: the Court on the basis of material placed before it, such as the F.I.R and the statements recorded by the police may go into the question whether the case of constructive liability was made out or not even at the bail stage. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (B) 1999 P.Cr.L.J., 1, rel
Principle of non applicability of vicarious liability of accused at bail stage— the principles are not applicable at the bail stage when it is spelt out from the record that the occurrence was not pre-mediated and the same of the result of sudden provocation. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (C) 1989 P.Cr.L.J., 1995, rel.
—when the offence is committed in furtherance of common intention with premeditation and pre-planning, then every accused person is vicariously liable for commission of the offence, irrespective of the fact that what role has been played by him, however, it was necessary to prove that the intention of such participant was common. Fazal Hussain & another v. Muhammad Taj & others 2017 SCR 1050 (A)
— occurrence with common intention and premeditation—the common intention can be developed at the spur of the moment and there are cases in which the conviction has been awarded to the accused when they have played an active role on spot, although the occurrence was not premeditated. Fazal Hussain & another v. Muhammad Taj & others 2017 SCR 1050 (B)
—Bail—cancellation of—offences under sections 302, 341,147, 148, 149, 337/A (1, 2), 337/ F-1,114/34, APC—Principle of vicarious liability—where pre-meditation or sharing of intention is visible and prima facie connect the accused with the commission of offence then Held:on the basis of principle ofvicarious liability, bail can be refused. Further held: Law is now well settled that where an accused is ascribed the role of joining an unlawful assembly by sharing the common intention of that assembly, he is not entitled to the bail although he has not inflicted the fatal injury. Dildar Khan vs Muhammad Razzaq alias Shakar 2018 SCR 351(A & B)