LIAQAT ALI Versus State
The petitioner, Liaqat Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the death of the victim, Mushtaq Ahmad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner incited his sons to commit the murder by raising a 'Lalkara' (exhortation) following a prior altercation between his son and the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was only assigned the role of exhortation, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the petitioner, an elderly man, was not connected to the motive of the crime, which stemmed from an incident involving his son. The Court determined that the true import of the 'Lalkara' and the petitioner's liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is a person who is only alleged to have raised a Lalkara entitled to bail when the motive for the crime is not connected to them?
- Does the role of exhortation in a murder case constitute a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail when their liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires further investigation?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Liaqat Ali, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.447, dated 14-11-2004, registered at Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura, at the instance of Ashfaq Ahmad son of Haji Muhammad Ishaq, brother of Mushtaq Ahmad, victim of assault, for offences under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. Later on, after death of Mushtaq Ahmad, offence under section 302, P.P.C. stood added to the list of offences.
2. Succinctly the allegation against the petitioner was that he incited his sons Sawar Khan and Waseem by raising a Lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant party for the insult which had been caused a day earlier to the occurrence and kill them; on his incitement, Sawar Khan and Waseem made firing through their pistols resulting in the death of Mushtaq Ahmad and injuries to Zahoor Ahmad, P.W.
3. The petitioner had been arrested by the police on 14-11-2004 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, who dismissed his application vide order dated 26-1-2005.
4. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly, the role ascribed to the petitioner, according to the F.I.R., is that of exhorting a proverbial Lalkara and nothing beyond that. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that it was a commanding Lalkara and his reliance on the cases of Chiragh Din and others v. the Sate (PLD 1967 SC 340), Karamat Ali v. Haji Muhammad Hussain and others (1993 Law Notes (Lahore) 975), All-ud-Din and 2 others v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 101) and Akhtar Ijaz Khan Yazdani v. The State (1998 Shariat Decisions 130) does not advance his case inasmuch as the present petitioner, who is an elderly man of sixty years, is not connected with the motive part A of the story. According to the prosecution itself, an altercation had taken place between the petitioner's son Sawar Khan and Mushtaq Ahmad deceased a day prior to the occurrence. Sawar Khan is a young-man of 23/24 years of age and his co-accused Waseem, who is his real brother, is 22/23 years of age. Prima facie there was no occasion for the present petitioner to have exhorted his sons to avenge the insult, which had neither been caused to him nor in his presence, rather it was caused to Sawar Khan. It was Sawar Khan who allegedly armed with a lethal weapon came and effectively used the same. The facts and circumstances of the cases (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant were different and proceeded on their own particular facts.
5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been assigned the role of Lalkara, the true import whereof is to be ascertained by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence in the case and his liability under section 34, P.P.C. needs further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., I am inclined to admit him to bail.
6. Accordingly, by accepting this application, I direct that the petitioner be released from custody subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./L-3/L Bail granted.