MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD DAWOOD and another
This petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, in a case registered under Sections 324/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of raising a 'Lalkara' (incitement) while his co-accused allegedly fired shots, should be cancelled. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Conversely, the respondent contended that the principles governing the grant of bail differ from those for its cancellation and that, lacking a blood relationship with the main accused, the allegation of raising a 'Lalkara' was questionable. The Court held that the nature of the 'Lalkara'—whether commanding or merely proverbial—is a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after evidence is recorded. Finding no allegation that the respondent misused the concession of bail, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that bail cancellation requires distinct grounds not present in this case.
- Is the standard for cancelling bail the same as the standard for granting bail?
- Does the mere allegation of raising a 'Lalkara' without a blood relationship to the main accused constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- Should the determination of whether a 'Lalkara' was commanding or proverbial be decided at the bail stage or by the Trial Court after recording evidence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No, 27, dated 4-5-2004, under sections 324/109/34, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Nowshera, Khushab, and seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent Muhammad Dawood by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order, dated 10-6-2004.
2. ' The allegation against the respondent is that he raised Lalkara while his co-accused Alzaal who is still at large caused successive fires on vital parts of Salah Muhammad brother of the complainant and the respondent was not entitled for grant pre-arrest bail, therefore, it has been prayed that concession of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent be withdrawn. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has placed reliance on PLD 1984 SC 192 and NLR 1995 277.
3. ' The petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent No,1 who by placing reliance on 1986 SCM R 1386 and 1991 M LD 579 has argued that principle for cancellation and for grant of bail are entirely different. Respondent No,1 had no blood relation with the main accused, therefore, there was no occasion to raise Lalkara and the respondent was rightly allowed pre-arrest bail.
4. ' Learned counsel for the State has supported learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the accused has no blood relation with his co-accused, whether Lalkara attributed to the respondent was commanding in nature or proverbial, is to be seen by the Trial Court after recording of evidence. There is no allegation of misusing of concession of bail, therefore, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. The petition stands dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUJAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI vs ANSAR MEHMOOD AWAN and 2 others 2016 PLJ AJ&K 162, 2016 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 32
- MUJAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT, MUZAFFARABAD A.K. vs ANSAR MEHMOOD AWAN and 2 others 2016 PLJ AJ&K 162