MUBARIK SHAH vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner's earlier pre-arrest bail had been cancelled by the Supreme Court with the observation that he could move for post-arrest bail on merits. The Sessions Court and the High Court both rejected the post-arrest bail application, noting that apart from being attributed the role of raising a fatal lalkara, the actual motive for the crime and leadership of the co-accused were also attributed to the petitioner. The Supreme Court heard the counsel, found that both lower courts had duly considered the submissions and formed a prima facie view of the material on record which did not warrant interference, and consequently refused leave to appeal.
- Is a person attributed with a fatal lalkara and motive entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the attribution of a lalkara alone preclude the courts from denying bail when other aggravating factors like motive are present?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17-5-1986 refusing him bail after arrest in a case registered against him and three others under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. At Police .Station Saddar, Faisalabad on 27-8-1983.
2. Earlier, the bail before arrest of the petitioner was cancelled by this Court observing that "This order will, however, not preclude him from moving petition for bail after arrest and is being dealt with on its own merits."
3. When the petitioner moved the application for bail after surrendering to the order his application was rejected by the learned Session Judge observing "in this case not only the role of shouting --- lalkara--- is attributed to the petitioner but in fact the actual motive is also attributed to him". The High Court after taking note of the facts upheld that order observing as follows:- "The whole case of the complainant party is that the petitioner traffics in narcotics and that the other three co-accused are his servants and agents. The fatal Lalkara is attributed Lo the petitioner, which led to indiscriminate use of first arms by the other three co-accused'. Without going on the record as having given any finding in the matter, 1 would only say for the limited purposes of this bail petition, that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up the same ground before us, viz., the proverbial Lalkara and no other role being attributed to him.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at length and find that his submission has been duly taken note of by both the Courts, and a prima facie view of the entire available material has been formed. Which even to us at this stage, does not appear exceptionable or requiring correction.
6. Hence leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 143
- GHULLAM RASOOL vs KHADIM HUSSAIN And Others 1991 P Cr. L J 241
- GHULAM NABI and anothers vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 126