2026 PLP 1371 (YLR)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that on his direction his co-accused son committed murder of the son of complainant by firing

Perusal of the record depicted that the effective role of firing and causing death of the deceased and ineffective firing upon the complainant and other witness had been attributed to co-accused who was not the petitioner herein

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he raised lalkara, however, no overt act had been attributed to him by the complainant in the commission of offence

At the time of occurrence, the present accused-petitioner had not been shown armed, therefore, the question whether he shared common intention with co-accused in commission of offence and whether he was vicariously liable for the act of his co-accused was to be answered by the Trial Court during trial after recording evidence

In such state of affairs, the case of accused-petitioner had become one of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Tariq Zia v. The State 2003 SCMR 958 and Qurban Ali v. The State and others 2017 SCMR 279 rel. Shahzeb Rahim, State Counsel for the State. Amaad Azam for the Complainant. Judgment Ijaz Anwar, J.

Through instant bail application, accused petitioner Shoaib Jan son of Aziz Khan seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. l94 dated 03.04.2024 under sections 302/324/109/ 34 P.P.C at Police Station city, District Kohat.

2. On 03.04.2024 at 19:15 hours, Mst. Firdos Bibi while present in the casualty of KDA hospital with the dead body of her son namely Muhammad Akash lodged report stating that on the day of occurrence at the relevant time, she along with other inmates was present in the house when heard hue and cry and on coming out, saw accused petitioner Shoaib Jan and his son Muhammad Ali (not petitioner herein) abusing and yelling at her son Muhammad Akash and her nephew Zeshan during which accused petitioner directed his son Muhammad Ali armed with pistol to shoot, upon which he fired at them with which her son Muhammad Akash was hit and died on the spot whereas they luckily escaped unhurt. Motive was disclosed as previous altercation. On her report, the instant case was registered.

3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

4. Perusal of record depicts that the effective role of firing and causing death of the deceased and ineffective firing upon the complainant and other witness has been attributed to co-accused Muhammad Ali who is not petitioner herein. Allegation against the accused petitioner is that of raising Lalkara, however, no overt act has been attributed to him by the complainant in the commission of offence. At the time of occurrence, the present accused petitioner has not been shown armed, therefore, the question whether he shared common intention with co-accused in commission of offence and whether he is vicariously liable for the act of his co-accused is to be answered by the trial court during trial after recording evidence. Reliance can be placed on the case of "Tariq Zia v. The State" (SCMR 958) wherein the August Supreme Court of Pakistan while allowing bail to an accused person charged with the role of raising "Lalkara" held as under: "The contents of the FIR show that the accused was empty-handed and has not played any active/overt act in the commission of the offence. It would be for the trial Court to examine the evidence and determine the effect of the Lalkara raised by the petitioner. At this stage, we feel that prima facie, a case for grant of bail has been made out." Similarly, in case titled "Qurban Ali v. The State and others" (2017 SCMR 279), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan further held as under: "The petitioner Qurban has not been attributed any overt act during the occurrence except the role of raising lalkara. In the circumstances of the case, it is for the learned trial Court to determine, after recording evidence pro and contra, whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the acts of his coaccused."