ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Allah Ditta, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to be empty-handed and attributed only with raising a Lalkara (incitement), was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner did not inflict any injuries on the deceased or the witnesses and that his role was limited to the Lalkara. Finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over eight months and was no longer required for investigation, the Court allowed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is attributed only with a Lalkara and is empty-handed, their case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused person attributed only with raising a Lalkara and being empty-handed entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the attribution of a Lalkara alone constitute reasonable grounds to believe an accused committed an offense under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,76, dated 24-12-1999 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal.
2. The prosecution case is that on the fateful day complainant and his brother Iftikhar at about 6- 00 p.m were coming towards their home after participating in Khatim Sharif of Baba Roshan Shah.
When they reached near the door of the house of Mirza Muhammad Saleem suddenly Javed son of Nazir Ahmad armed with Chhuri, Amin son of Allah Ditta armed with Chhuri, Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Boota empty-handed, Khalil son of Sardar armed with Toka came there. Allah Ditta/petitioner accused raised Lalkara and asked that today they will avenge for insult caused to Amin before two days and teach them a lesson. After such juncture/dialogue, Khalil inflicted Toka blow which landed on the head of Iftikhar. Subsequently, he inflicted Toka blow on Iftikhar deceased which landed on the right hand of the deceased. Whereas the complainant tried to escape the incident Khalil accused again inflicted Toka blow which hit on the head of the complainant. Due to this injury he sme ared in blood. Subsequently, Amin and Javed also inflicted Chhuri blows which caused injuries on the chest and abdomen of the deceased, who also smeared in blood. They raised hue and cry, and on that the witnesses attracted to the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is only attributed with Lalkara and he was empty-handed. He further contended that the petitioner has not caused any injury on any person and no overt act except Lalkara is attributed to him. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been involved falsely in this case. He further submitted that petitioner is an old man and is behind the bars for the last more than eight months. The petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation, therefore, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard both sides and also perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. As empty-handed. He caused no injury to the deceased or any of the witnesses of the occurrence. Only Lalkara is attributed to him who makes his case of further inquiry. He is behind the bars for the last more than 8 months and no more required for the purpose of investigation. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the, petitioner has committed the offence which falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly without going into the merits of the case, this bail' application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, Sahiwal.