LUQMAN Versus STATE

The petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 302/148/149/109, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.544, dated 11-10-1992, registered at Police Station Sadar Chiniot, seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have raised proverbial Lalkara.

3. Learned counsel contended that no overt act, except the, proverbial Lalkara, is attributed to the petitioner. He further submitted that it is a case of Kali Kala, as Mst. Razia Bibi was found dead alongwith Muhammad Aslam deceased in the house of her husband, which prima facie proves the defence version that both the deceased were found together by the principal accused, Muhammad Haroon and Khalid who killed them under grave and sudden provocation and by twisting the real facts the prosecution has involved the petitioner in this case falsely, who is behind the bars since 11-10-1992, without any progress in the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has resisted this bail application on the ground that two persons were murdered, though in the house of husband of Mst. Razia Bibi deceased, but the petitioner facilitated the crime and he is vicariously liable for the act of the principal accused; hence the case against him falls within the prohibitory clause and he is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find great substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that possibility cannot be ruled out that the crimc might have been committed under grave and sudden provocation as the venue is the house of the husband of Mst. Razia Bibi deceased. Muhammad Aslam deceased had no ostensible business to be at the place of occurrence at the odd hours of the night where he met his death. In these circumstances, it appears that the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, especially when no overt act has been attributed to him. Over and above this, the petitioner is also a minor boy of 13 years as is apparent from his school-leaving certificate which is placed on the record.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the, satisfaction of the A.C. Chiniot.

N.H.Q./L-47/L Bail allowed.