INAYAT ULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Inayat Ullah, who was implicated along with others in the double murder of his son Shahid Iqbal and daughter-in-law Uzma Shahid. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on grounds of further inquiry, old age, and affidavits exonerating him, notwithstanding his role in raising a commanding 'Lalkara' and being named in the F.I.R. and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that no case for bail was made out, dismissing the petition. The court reasoned that the petitioner was specifically named with an attributed motive, played a commanding role in directing the fatal shots by a co-accused, was previously declared a proclaimed offender, and that the affidavits exonerating him were submitted at a suspicious juncture upon his surrender. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is attributed a commanding role in a heinous double murder and was a proclaimed offender, bail is unwarranted under the prohibitory clause despite exonerating affidavits.
- Whether an accused who raises a commanding Lalkara in a double murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the submission of exonerating affidavits during investigation furnish sufficient grounds for bail when the accused was previously declared a proclaimed offender?
- Whether the case of an accused charged with a capital offense falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
F.I.R. In this case was lodged by Jamshed Ahmad complainant against the petitioner and others for the murder of Shahid Iqbal, who is real brother of the complainant and son of the present petitioner and also for the murder of Uzma Shahid were of Shahid Iqbal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only allegation against the petitioner was that he was armed with "Pomp Action 12 bore, he was present in his room, raising "Lalkara" and asked his co-accused, namely, Aurangzaib, who is also his son to tire at the deceased, who fired at Shahid Iqbal and Uzma Shahid, who died there and then. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is an old man of 80 years of age, that he has been falsely implicated, that both the eye-witnesses have exonerated the present petitioner in their affidavits, photo copy of which have been placed on record, that presently petitioner confined in Jail Hospital and his case is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. 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., motive is attributed to him, he is the main accused, he raised "Lalkara" and got killed his real son Shahid Iqbal from the hands of his other co-accused and also daughter-in-law, namely Uzma Shahid, that grandsons of the petitioner have implicated him in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., that he was arrested in January, 2002, that he was declared P.O. And his case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, Jamshed Ahmad complainant is real son of the present petitioner. In the instant case, very detailed and comprehensive F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant. According to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., it was the petitioner who asked Shahid Iqbal deceased to come out of his room, on which he alongwith his were came out from his room, then, petitioner asked his other son, namely, Aurangzaib, who is P.O. To fire at the deceased, who fired at Shahid Iqbal and Uzma Shahid deceased, who died there and then. Learned counsel has not produces before me any copy of N.I.C. Of the petitioner to prove that he is 80 years of age.
He has produced before me a card issued by Allama Iqbal Medical College, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore in which his age has been shown as 70 years. The grandsons of the petitioner, namely, Usman Shahid and Ali Shahid have implicated the present petitioner in their statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. He was declared P.O. And his case was separated. It may also be noted here, that eye-witnesses have exonerated the present petitioner by submitting an affidavit before the police during investigation but the time is very' important i.e. When the petitioner was declared P.O.
And he surrendered before the police. Learned counsel has submitted before me that presently, petitioner is confined in Jail Hospital but no proof in this regard has been produced before me.
Motive in this case is attributed to the present petitioner. It is a double murder case. It was not a proverbial "Lalkara" but a commanding "Lalkara" asking his son to kill both the deceased.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the F.I.R. And the statements of the P.Ws. No case for bail is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Ali Asghar Versus State 2026 YLR 1012