Abdul Rashid Butt vs The State
This criminal matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rashid Butt, who was implicated in a criminal case for allegedly raising a lalkara and exhorting co-accused to attack the complainants, resulting in dagger injuries to Muhammad Boota and Mst. Rukhsana. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given his role of raising a lalkara and the presence of supporting medical-legal reports confirming injuries. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove his absence from the scene of occurrence, noting that the FIR specifically attributed the role of lalkara to him and that the medical evidence corroborated the injuries sustained by the victims. Consequently, the court found no extraordinary circumstances or mala fide to grant pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is attributed a specific role such as a lalkara in an occurrence corroborated by medical evidence, and no mala fide is shown on the part of the prosecution, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is attributed the role of raising a lalkara in a criminal assault supported by medical evidence?
- Does the absence of a weapon in the hands of an accused negate his constructive liability or role when a lalkara is established?
- Whether lack of mala fide on the part of the prosecution precludes the grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER Whereupon, petitioner raised a lalkara and exhorted co- accused. Aqeel. On which co- accused Aqeel gave a dagger blow to Muhammad Boota, cousin of the complainant. After the first blow, co-accused Aqeel caused another blow to Muhammad Boota. Co-accused Shakeel attacked at Boota's wife with his dagger and thereby, they injured husband and wife i.e. Muhammad Boota and Mst. Rukhsana who became unconscious and fell on the ground.
3. The learned counsel submits that petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence. He submits that even according to the FIR, he was empty handed. He submits that one of the eye- witness, Muhammad Hussain denied seeing the occurrence. He submits that offence under section 324 PPC is not made out.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that though petitioner did not cause any injury but he shared the common intention of his co-accused. He submits that M.L.R, is a proof that occurrence took place and injured Muhammad. Boota and Mst. Rukhsana were caused injuries.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no proof on record that petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence. According to the FIR, he is one who raised lalkara and directed his co-accused to launch an attack upon Muhammad Boota and his wife who were literally injured by dagger blows. Whether section 324 PPC is attracted or not, the fact remains that both Muhammad Boota and Mst. Rukhsana were caused dagger injuries supported by this MLRs.
There is no evidence of any mala fide or ulterior motive, at least on the record.
6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to extend any extraordinary concession of prearrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. The interim to the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.2005 is recalled.