Dr. SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arose out of a triple murder case in which fourteen accused persons were named in the First Information Report. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, dragged the deceased persons into a house where principal accused persons fatally shot them, with the petitioner allegedly raising a 'Lalkara'. The primary legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an accused person to whom only the role of raising a 'Lalkara' is attributed, without any overt act of firing, recovery, or connection to the underlying motive, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The High Court accepted the petition and granted bail, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that mere presence and attribution of a 'Lalkara', without firing, recovery of incriminating material, or link to the motive, warrants concession of bail pending trial.
- Whether the attribution of a mere role of 'Lalkara' without any overt act of firing or weapon recovery brings the case of an accused within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused person named in a murder FIR be granted post-arrest bail when he is disconnected from the motive and did not cause any firearm injuries to the deceased?
- Whether recovery of fewer crime empties than the alleged number of armed accused raises a ground for further inquiry at the bail stage?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner. Further submits that petitioner was not connected with the motive and there is delay of 3 hours in lodging the F.I.R. though the police station was at a distance of one kilometre. Adds that there were no dragging marks on the person of three deceased because in the F.I.R., it was alleged that all the accused dragged the deceased persons and encircled them. In support of his submissions learned counsel has relied upon PLD 1979 Kar. 583 and 1978 150.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he was present at the spot, raised commanding Lalkara and found guilty by the police. Further submits that on his abetment, three persons have been murdered. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon 1993 PCr.LJ 2112, PLD 1967 SC 340, 2002 PCr.LJ 289 and 2001 PCr.LJ 134.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The motive behind the occurrence was that one Abu Talib Sherazi on 4‑1‑2003 was injured and later on died. The brothers of Abu Talib Sherazi namely Syed Ibn‑e -Hassan Sherazi and Syed Riaz Ali Sherazi had suspicion that he was got murdered by Amjad Ali, Amanat Ali and Yaqoob alongwith Farzand Ali who was son‑in‑law of Yaqoob, 2/3 days prior to the occurrence, one Ramzan Mirasi came to house of the complainant and told her that for the murder of Abu Talib Sherazi, the son of the complainant, her husband and her son‑in‑law are being named and he can get the matter patched up. On the day of occurrence, after Fajar prayer, again Ramzan Mirasi and his wife Irshad Bibi came to the house of the complainant and thereafter the three deceased including Farzand Ali accompanied them. They went alongwith said Ramzan Mirasi and they were followed, by the complainant, Salamat Ali, Niamat Ali and Ghulam Muhammad. When they reached near Police Station Shahdara, 14 accused persons including the present petitioner armed with rifle, pump action, gun and pistol caught hold the husband and son of the complainant after dragging them and then took them in the house of Abu Talib, threatened them with dire consequences, there all the three deceased were encircled, there Syed Ibn‑e‑Hassan Sherazi, Syed Riaz Ali Sherazi both armed with pistols, Ikhlaq Ali armed with pistol, Baqir Ali armed with pistol started firing at the three deceased persons which hit on different parts of their bodies. As far other accused were concerned, they were raising Lalkara that if anybody came near, he would also be murdered. After the death of three deceased persons, all the accused ran away from the spot while raising Lalkara. In the last line of F.I.R., it was also stated that three deceased were killed on the abetment of Syed Ibn‑e‑Hassan Sherazi who was confined in jail in those days.
As far as present petitioner is concerned, he never fired at the spot on three deceased persons. Only 5 crime‑empties were recovered from the spot. 14 accused were shown to be present at the spot while one has been shown as accused of abetment. Even the petitioner is not connected with the motive of the case. No recovery has been effected from him. The role attributed to petitioner is that of Lalkara. In my opinion case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Relying on the case of Taria Bashir. v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./S‑756/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- NAZAKAT ALI vs THE STATE and another 2008 P Cr. L J 810