BASHARAT vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail where the petitioner was accused of raising a lalkara in a criminal case. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner's alleged act of raising a lalkara constituted a command or was merely proverbial, and whether vicarious liability warrants continued incarceration pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the nature of the lalkara and the attribution of vicarious liability are matters requiring further inquiry at trial, particularly given that the primary motive was attributed to a co-accused in custody and the petitioner lacked any personal motive. The court established the key principle that where the specific role and motive of an accused person present debatable questions for trial, particularly regarding vicarious liability and the exact nature of an exhortation, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Does raising a lalkara whose nature as a command or proverbial expression is open to question justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of a personal motive against an accused, where motive lies with a co-accused, warrants the grant of bail?
- Can a case of vicarious liability be a ground for further inquiry and subsequent release on bail pending trial?
ORDER
1. Allegation against the petitioner is that of raising lalkara. The question whether Lalkara was in nature of command or only a proverbial one, is open to further enquiry. Further that petitioner has no motive whatsoever to commit crime. The motive squarely lies against the co-accused who is in the custody. The petitioner at the best can be held for his vicarious liability which would be determined at the trial. He is, therefore, admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.