Khalid vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from a case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of raising a lalkara (incitement) and ineffective firing, sought bail on the grounds of false implication and lack of recovery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose co-accused brother remained a fugitive, was entitled to bail despite allegations of participation in a murderous assault. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the specific role attributed to him—merely raising a lalkara—and the absence of any recovery from his possession rendered his involvement a matter of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the mere relationship with a main accused or the fact that a co-accused is absconding does not justify indefinite incarceration when the petitioner has established a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the only role attributed to them is raising a lalkara and ineffective firing?
- Does the fact that a co-accused is a fugitive from justice preclude the grant of bail to another accused?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of their relationship with the main accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.-- Through this application under Section 497, Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.. 742-2005, dated 4.12.2005 registered under Sections 324, 148/149, PPC at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad, on the statement of Shah Nawaz Khan, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the FIR are that the complainant had purchased agricultural land measuring 15/1.6 acres from Mst. Maqboolan Bibi, etc. And he was residing there. On 3-12-2005 at about 8-00 p.m. The complainant was sitting with Azhar Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal in his Haveli. The electric blub was on. In the meanwhile, the petitioner along with other co-accused armed with fire- arms entered in the Haveli and petitioner Khalid and co-accused Muhammad Sharif raised lalkara to teach a lesson to complainant for purchasing the land and set the Haveli at fire after killing them. Thereafter, Abid-accused armed with Kalashnikov fired on Zafar Iqbal, nephew of the complainant hitting him on his head and he fell down on the ground and remaining saved themselves by lying on the ground. The accused persons had also damaged the Haveli by firing.
The police was called for on phone No. 15 and on seeing the police party, the accused persons had run away from the spot. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be that the complainant had purchased land from sisters of Sharif co-accused, who was annoyed due to this reason.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was attributed only lalkara and in-effective firing; that nothing has been recovered from him during the course of investigation and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case being real brother of the main accused,
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the main accused is still absconder, who is real brother of the present petitioner, that the empties of Kalashnikov were' recovered from the spot and police on receiving the intimation of the incident had come at the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of PWs. The petitioner had raised lalkara for launching the murderous assault upon the complainant party and there is also apprehension of repetition of offence.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the' record with due care and caution.
6. It is generally noticed that the tendency is developing in the society that innocent persons having relationship with the main accused are involved falsely by widening the net and as such role of each accused has also to be considered by the Courts as well at bail stage, In the present case only one injury was caused to Zafar Iqbal, which is attributed to Abid co-accused, brother of the petitioner, but 17 nominated and 5/6 unknown persons armed with fire-arms, have been involved in the present case by the complainant. Whether the petitioner had participated in the occurrence or not is question of further inquiry as nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the investigation. Both the parties are related*to each other. The complainant had purchased the disputed land from the sisters of Sharif co-accused and the accused party may be annoyed with the complainant and this case be a reason for false implication. The person of the present petitioner is no more required as investigation has been completed and petitioner cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period only on the ground that his co- accused is still fugitive from justice when the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the l(ke amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.