ABDUL RAZZAQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Razzaq, who was implicated in a triple-murder case registered via F.I.R. No. 204 of 1996. The petitioner was charged under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 148 and 149, for his alleged involvement in an occurrence where three individuals were killed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose specific role was limited to raising a 'Lalkara' (incitement) and carrying a firearm without discharging it, was entitled to bail despite the severity of the offense. The Court held that since the petitioner did not fire any shots and his involvement was limited to the Lalkara, his vicarious liability under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further probe at the trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that mere attribution of a Lalkara, without evidence of active participation or firing, warrants further inquiry into the applicability of common object or unlawful assembly provisions for the purpose of bail.
- Does the mere attribution of a Lalkara in an F.I.R. justify the denial of post-arrest bail?
- Is the application of sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to further probe when the accused is only alleged to have raised a Lalkara?
- Can bail be granted in a murder case where the accused is alleged to have been armed but did not fire any shots?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,204 of 1996 at Police Station, Burjwala, on 13-7-1996. The allegation against the petitioner is only to the extent that he was armed with fire-arms and raised Lalkara during the occurrence in which three persons were killed namely Muhammad Anwar, Ismail and Razia Bibi. The petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid F.I.R., was arrested immediately after the occurrence and since then he is in Jail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner. He has neither fired at any of the deceased in the air. Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail while submitting that three persons were killed during the occurrence and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Perusal of F.I.R.
Indicates that Abdul Razzaq petitioner is only attributed Lalkara in the F.I.R., although according to the complainant he was armed with fire-arms also. He has not used the weapon which he was carrying at the time of occurrence. Involvement on the basis of Lalkara is a common feature of our society. There are total eight accused in this case and separate role is attributed to all them in the F.I.R. Since the petitioner's role is only to have raised Lalkara at the time of occur ence, therefore, his involvement by invoking provision of section 148/149 read with section 302/324, P.P.C., needs further probe.
4. In view of the circumstances, he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,2 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satistacti in of the trial Court.