1998 PLP 2054 (MLD)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/452/148/149

Bail, grant of

Occurrence was the result of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation-- Accused was empty-handed and was assigned the role of-raising "Lalkara" which might or might not represent intention

Vicarious liability of accused, thus, was yet to be ascertained and his case being distinguishable from that of his co- accused, he was entitled to bail

Accused was allowed bail accordingly. Tariq Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner. Kamran Bin Latif for the State. Abdul Hamid petitioner being under arrest in a case under section 302/324/452/148/149, P.P.C. registered against him through F.I.R. No.170 dated 2-7-1997 at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, Sahiwal seeks post arrest bail. The complainant had exchanged hot words with Abdul Hamid over the return of Rs.10,000 three days ago and on the day of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. suddenly a quarrel took place between the parties and as a consequence thereof the petitioner allegedly raising Lalkara instigated his sons namely Nadeem, Aleem and Azeem alongwith Saleem and Waseem armed with lethal weapons for teaching lesson to the complainant, whereupon they attacking on Bashir Zahid caused him injuries, who later died in hospital. The petitioner was refused bail with the observation that he was not only attributed simple Lalkara but on his instigation, the remaining accused named therein playing an active role participated in the occurrence and thereby sharing common intention committed the crime.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the contents of the F.I.R. contended that undoubtedly except the demand of return of money, there was no dispute between the parties and is not known that how the quarrel started and what was the actual reason of the clash of fateful incident on that day. He contended that occurrence having taken place suddenly was not premeditated and the alleged Lalkara being without the intention of causing damage to any person, was not enough to make it a case of vicarious liability.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner having played the pivotal role of instigation was responsible for calling the trouble and, therefore, is not entitled to the concession of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. As per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R., the occurrence was a result of sudden quarrel without involving any element of premeditation. The petitioner being empty handed is assigned the role of raising Lalkara, which may express different impression in different cases and some time is entirely purposeless, therefore, the alleged Lalkara may or may not represent intention. Thus, the vicarious liability of the petitioner in the given circumstances being yet ascertainable and the case against him being distinguishable to that of his co accused on facts, he is entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. N.H.Q./A-293/L Bail allowed.