It is most salutary principle of law that each criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and it cannot coincide with others.

 It is most salutary principle of law that each criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and it cannot coincide with others. In the instant case, there is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report wherein he is assigned role of raising “Lalkara” whereas the co-accused of the petitioner resorted to indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons causing death of Wasif Khan and Asif Khan. Undeniably, the accusation levelled against the petitioner is twofold:-

(i) Raising of “Lalkara”. (ii) Kicking the dead bodies after the occurrence.

Admittedly the petitioner is aged about 65 years and he is also suffering from ailment. Close scrutiny of the accusation levelled by the prosecution, no overt-act is ascribed to the petitioner except the proverbial “Lalkara. The question which require determination is whether the “Lalkara” raised by the petitioner was commanding in nature or that was mere a proverbial “Lalkara”. During the course of proceedings before us, it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility of sharing common intention with the co-accused on the ground that the petitioner was not enjoying good relationing with co-accused especially Shahid, because of the reason that a proclamation in this regard was already published in the newspaper disassociating itself from all affairs of said Shahid and he was also deprived from movable and immovable property owned by the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 23.10.2020 persuaded the learned counsel to offer his good offices for the production of said Shahid who is fugitive from law. The learned counsel at the strength of the proclamation published in the newspaper has stated that as the petitioner is behind the bar and he has no access to his son with whom he has already strained relations, therefore, it is not within his command to produce him before the police. Keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel and law on the subject, as the proclamation was issued much prior to the lodging of the crime report; question qua its being a commanding “Lalkara” or otherwise it seems to be determined by the learned trial court after recording of evidence. As far as second limb of the accusation is concerned, co-accused with similar allegation was extended pre-arrest bail by the learned trial court; hence, the petitioner is entitled for the same on this score alone. Liberty of a person is a precious right which has to be resolved in favour of the accused being favourite child of law, denial of same require extreme compelling reasons.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and law on the subject, we are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry fully covered u/s 497(2) Cr.PC entitling for concession of bail.

Bail After Arrest
Crl.P.1017/2020
Sher Afzal v. The State thr. PG Punjab and another
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi