MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 124 of 2006 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Qilla Kalarwala, District Sialkot. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, an elderly man attributed with raising a lalkara and harboring a motive arising from a Panchayat decision regarding a tube-well, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's presence at the scene was prima facie plausible, that the medical report indicated he was receiving adequate treatment for his ailment in jail, and that no sufficient ground for bail was made out. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, refusing post-arrest relief.
- Whether an accused attributed with raising a lalkara in a murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does age and illness alone constitute sufficient ground for post-arrest bail when adequate medical treatment is provided in jail?
- Whether prima facie presence and instigation of co-accused bar the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J .---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 124 of 2006, dared 15-6-2006 for the offence under sections 302/324/148/149, P. P. C, registered at Police Station Qilla Kalarwala, District Sialkot, on the grounds that petitioner is about 70 years and an ailing person, the role attributed to the petitioner is that of raising Lalkara which is normally attributed to the elders to involve all the male members of the same family, petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased petitioner is behind the bars since 24-6-2006, investigation to the extent of the petitioner is almost complete and he is no more required for the said purpose. Conversely, counsel for the complainant submits that motive for the occurrence is attributed to the petitioner because the tube-well of the petitioner was removed from the land owned by the complainant in view of the decision of "Punchiat" which annoyed the petitioner and that on the day of occurrence he being the father raised commanding Lalkara instigating his co-accused (sons) to take revenge from the complainant party as a result of which his sons (co-accused) made firing and committed the murder of Ghulam Nabi (deceased). Submits that in the circumstances participation of the petitioner stands established from the data available on the record. It is further submitted that two co-accused of the petitioner who had actively participated in this occurrence are fugitive from law.
2. Heard. File perused.
3. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the motive for the commission of offence was that under the decision of `Punchiat' tube-well of the petitioner was removed from the land owned by the complainant party and the petitioner and his co-accused had grudge against the complainant in this regard. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that at the relevant time he instigated his co-accused (his real sons) to fire at Ghulam Nabi to get revenge with the complainant party for the insult caused by them due to the removal of the said tube-well and in this view of the matter prima facie presence of the petitioner at the relevant time seems to be plausible. Another ground taken up by learned counsel seeking post-arrest bail is the age of the petitioner as well his ailment but the report submitted by the Medical Officer, District Jail, Sialkot reveals that age of the petitioner is 60/65 years and that though he is a patient of T.B. But he is being treated in the jail hospital. No ground for bail is made out. Dismissed.
H.B.T./M-138/L Bail refused.