MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Siddique petitioner was arrested on 17th of February 1996, because of a case registered against him and two others vide F.I.R. No.21, dated 2-2-1996, registered at Police Station Kalar Sayedan, District Rawalpindi under section ,302/34 of P.P.C. regarding an occurrence which took place on the same day at 3-30 p.m. in the area of Chowk Pindori which is about 7 miles from Police Station Kalar Sayedan where the F.I.R. was lodged at 4-15 p.m. by complainant Amjad Hussain regarding the death of Tazarab Hussain deceased who died at the spot.

2. According to the prosecution, co-accused Muhammad Bashir was armed with .30 bore pistol, while co-accused Muhammad Yousaf who has already been allowed bail by the Sessions Court by Muhammad Siddique petitioner were empty-handed. Co-accused Muhammad Bashir fired with his pistol at Tazarab Hussain deceased and hit him on the left side of the front side of the chest as a result of which Tazarab Hussain deceased died at the spot. The post-mortem report as well as the skiagram show only one fire-arm wound of entry on the left side of the front of the chest.

3. The only allegation against Muhammad Siddique petitioner is that he exhorted co-accused Muhammad Bashir to open fire. The said allegation is now commonly referred to as "Proverbial Lalkara" because of the phrase having been used by My Lord Mr. Justice A.R. Comalias, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Aziz v. Bashir reported in PLD 1966 SC 658.

4. Although, there is no hard and fast rule that bail must always be granted when the only allegation against an accused is that of Lalkara as held by their Lordships of the Supreme, Court in the case of Chiragh Din and others v. The State PLD 1967 SC 340 and Mubarik Shah v. The State 1986 SCMR 1681 yet eversince the decision delivered in the case of Abdul Aziz v. Bashir reported in PLD 1966 SC 658, the overwhelming and consistent view of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has been that in such cases bail is normally granted. Reference in this context may usefully be made to the cases of Amanat Ali v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 and Rafiq Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR 343.

5. Reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, prima facie do not seem to exist. The case against the petitioner prima facie seems to be a case of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497 of Cr.P.C. which entitles the petitioner to the grant of bail.

6. Resultantly, the petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.5.0,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

N.H.Q./M-101/I Bail granted