ZAHOOR AHMAD vs STATE and another
This criminal petition arises out of FIR No. 132 of 2008 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qutabpur, District Multan, wherein the petitioner sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, to whom only a Lalkara was attributed and who was allegedly empty-handed during the incident with no recovery made from him, is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that since only a Lalkara was attributed, no recovery was made, and the investigation had been completed, the petitioner's further detention would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is assigned a role of making a Lalkara without any weapon or recovery, and the investigation is complete, the pre-arrest bail is liable to be confirmed.
- Whether an accused to whom only a Lalkara is attributed without any weapon or recovery is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does the completion of investigation favour the confirmation of pre-arrest bail for an accused?
- Whether further detention of an accused serves any useful purpose once the investigation has been completed?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No 132 of 2008 registered with Police Station Qutabpur, District Multan under Sections 324/34 PPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR are that one Nokar Hussain has lodged complaint against the petitioner wherein he had stated that he is labourer. At about 4 p.m. his brother Ghulam Shabbir was standing at a bridge. In the meantime, Sajjad alias Sajju armed with Pistol and Zahoor Ahmad empty handed had come there. Zahoor Ahmad made Lalkara that. Ghulam Shabbir, should not be let alive. Sajjad alias Sajju fired with his pistol which hit his brother on his chest who fell down on the ground. On his hue and cry, witnesses reached at the place of occurrence but the accused succeeded to run way from the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent; that only Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner; that the petitioner was not present at-the time of occurrence; that he was falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioner is entitled for bail concession.
4. On the other hand, leanred State counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that only Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner. He was shown empty handed at the time of occurrence. Further more that nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation. Investigation has been completed and further detention of petitioner would not serve any useful purpose, therefore, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner on 20.5.2008 is confirmed.