ZAHOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zahoor Ahmad, who was implicated in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have only raised a 'Lalkara' (incitement) and was described as empty-handed at the scene of the crime, was entitled to the concession of bail. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the petitioner did not perform the actual firing, no incriminating recovery was made from him during the investigation, and the investigation against him had already been completed. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's continued detention would serve no useful purpose. The Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is attributed only with a 'Lalkara' and no recovery is effected, and the investigation is complete, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail as further incarceration is unnecessary.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the only allegation against them is raising a Lalkara?
- Does the completion of an investigation justify the confirmation of bail for an accused who was empty-handed at the scene of the crime?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHAHEEN MASUD RIZVI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,132 of 2008 registered with Police Station Qutabpur, District Multan under sections 324/34, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that one Nokar Hussain has lodged complainant against the petitioner wherein he had stated that he is labourer. At about 4-1/2 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 away 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, learned 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.