1981 PLP 504 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27-5-1976, accepting the bail application filed by respon dents 1 to 4, whereby they were granted bail in a case registered under sections 302/307/148 and 149, P. P. C. The facts, as narrated by the petitioner in the F. I. R. lodged by him against the respondents 1 to 4 and three others, were that Muhammad Ali, brother-in law of Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner, had purchased some land in Chak No. 134/G. B. Zafar Ahmad and Rehmatullah accused along with respondents 1 to 4, nursed a grievance against Muhammad Ali and his brother-in-law Abdul Ghaffar because they were the lessees of this land before its sale to Muhammad Ali. we before the occurrence they had even beaten up Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner, on this account and a case under section 325/34, P. P. C. was registered against them. On the night of occurrence Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner his brother Abdul Sattar, Ramzan Ali and Muhammad Ilyas and their Karindas were irrigating their field when they were stopped by the accused, namely, Zafar Ahmad and Rehmat Ali, armed with guns, Rehmat Ullah, armed with rifle, and the four respondents armed with hatchets who said that they would not part with the possession of land and would not allow them to irrigate it. According to the informant since they had already obtained possession of land through due process of law therefore, they insisted upon staying there. On hearing this, all the accused raised a lalkara that the petitioner should now be ready for death. Zafar Ahmad opened fire with gun and his shot hit Ilyas on his neck, who died on the spot. The second shot was fired by Rehmat Ullah, whereby Muhammad Ramzan's left hand was injured. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, who were present at the spot armed with hatchets as partisans of the accused, joined in raising the lalkara. Respondents I to 4 applied for bail to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur who vide his order dated 27-3-1976 rejected their bail application mainly on the ground that the principal accused, Zafar Ahmad, who fired the fatal shot at the deceased, was absconding. And also there was a prima facie case against respondents 1 to

4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who was then, approached for grant of bail, was of the view that though the respondents were allegedly armed with hatchets, they were not ascribed any specific or active role in the commission of the murder of the deceased. Furthermore, it was possible that the presence of the respondents on the scene of occurrence was not connected with the commission of occurrence, but innocent, in so far as their deras were situated in close proximity of the spot of the incident. As to the alleged raising of general lalkara, the learned Judge was not satisfied with the inference sought to be drawn that either it proved the complicity of the respondents in the commission of crime or their presence was in furtherance of the common object to commit the offence, in particular as there was no specific lalkara attributed to them. Accordingly, the learned Judge accepted the application and granted the bail. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted', that general lalkara in particular circumstances, did give rise to the inference that all the present persons participated in the offence and relied upon 1970 S C M R

789. We may observe, as has repeatedly been observed by this Court and the Federal Court, that decisions in criminal cases are authority for the decision reached in that particular case, and largely depend upon the peculiar fact and circumstances of that case. A general lalkara, depending upon the circumstances of the case, may fix all the persons alleged to be present at the spot with joint criminal liability, or it may not therefore, the above-cited case cannot be considered as authority for the principle that whenever a general lalkara is alleged, regardless of the circumstances, every person present must be held to be implicated in the offence. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, no active role in the commission of crime and no specific injury, fatal or otherwise, to the deceased is attributed to the respondents. The granting or rejecting of bail being a matter within the discretion of the Court exercising it this Court will not interfere with the exercise either way, unless it be shown either that it was not exercised judicially or its exercise was perverse, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This is not the case in the present petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason to upset the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel also expressed an apprehension that the observations of the learned judge in the High Court may prejudice the case of the complainant at the trial. This apprehension is not justified as observations made while dealing with a bail application are of a tentative nature and the ultimate decision at the trial is to be based only on the evidence led at the trial. This petition, with the above observations, is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.