This order shall dispose of two connected matters viz. Crl. Misc. No. 1759/8 of 1982 and Crl. Misc. No. 1760/8 of 1982 as both these petitions for cancellation of bail arises out of the same F. I. R, viz. No. 43 of 1982 dated 19th April, 1982 of Police Station, Khudian, District Kasur.
2. Muhammad Ali, the petitioner in the present miscellaneous petition, lodged the aforementioned F. I. R. At Police Station, Khudian, at 7.45 a.m. On 19th April, 1982 alleging that on that very day at 4- 30 a.m. When the first informant accompanied by his nephew Muhammad Hanif deceased and cousin Muhammad Din left for Lahore, for purchasing implements of the tractor that they were waylaid near the graveyard by Muzaffar, Allah Ditta sons of Balanda (respondents in Crl. Misc. No. 1760/B of 1982), Qaiyum. Aslam sons of Muzaffar, Sharif son of Allah Ditta and Ikram Ullah son of Atta Muhammad. Aslam and Sharif are respondents in Crl. Misc; No. 1759/8 of 1982. Muzaffar and Allah Ditta respondents are alleged to have raised Lalkara shouting at their companions to kill Hanif etc. Qaiyum and Ikram Ullah are alleged to have fired with their pistols at Muhammad Hanif deceased.
Aslam and Sharif respondents are alleged to have run with sticks after Muhammad Ali petitioner and his brother Hakim Ali.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 1st July, 1982 admitted Aslam and Sharif (respondents in Crl. Misc. No. 1759/11 of 1982 to bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount. Similarly, vide his order dated 31st May, 1982 he admitted Muzaffar and Allah Ditta (respondents in Crl. Misc. No. 1760/13 of 1982) to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000, each with two sureties each in the like amount. Subsequently, the petitioner moved petition for cancellation of bail against Muzaffar and Allah Ditta but the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 1st July, 1982.
4. Muhammad Ali petitioner has thus filed the present petitions for cancellation of bail of the aforementioned respondents namely Aslam and Sharif (Crl. Misc. No. 1759/11 of 1982) and Muzaffar and Allah Ditta (Crl. Misc. No. 1760/13 of 1982).
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Muzaffar and Allah Ditta have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that only Lalkara is attributed to them and that no other overt act has been alleged against them. It is further contended that every case has to be seen in the light of its own facts and in certain cases the persons accused of Lalkara even are not entitled to be released on bail. It is further alleged in this behalf that Muzaffar and Allah Ditta respondents had a motive to murder Muhammad Hanif deceased as he being the only child of his mother inherited the land and the other immovable property left by her which would, but for him have gone to these respondents. Reliance has been placed on Chiragh Din and others v. The State (P L D1967 SC 340) wherein it has been held that question of bail of accused who is alleged to have raised Lalkara must be decided on an appreciation of all the facts including degree of interest in the crime possessed by the person who shouted the Lalkara and the part he played in the background of the affair. There are circumstances in which mere presence at the scene of the crime is a sufficient overt act to support a conviction. Shouting of Lalkara may, in such circumstances, have effect as a further overt act of abetment. In Ghulam Muhammad and another v. The State (P L D1981 Lah.109) it has been ruled that it cannot be said that wherever the allegation of Lalkara is levelled against a person it is invariably false and deserves to be discarded and that every person to whom Lalkara is attributed is not entitled to bail as a matter of right and each case of Lalkara has to be dealt with in the light of its own facts and circumstances.
6. In the circumstances-of the present case the deceased Muhammad Hanif inherited the property left by his mother as back as 20 years and for the intervening period there is no evidence of any violence or raising of dispute about this inheritance on the part of the respondents. It cannot, therefore, be said that these respondents had a motive to do away with the deceased. In Abdul Aziz v. Bashir, Ahmad and another (P L D196 G SC 658) it has been held that allegations of Lalkara are very frequently made, and Courts are found to reject them with almost equal frequency, in the absence of anything to indicate an earlier conspiracy. Additional Sessions Judge was held competent to grant bail in such a case. This basic authority has been followed in a subsequent chain of authorities on the subject.
7. In the light of the above circumstances of this case, no exception can be taken to the order granting bail to these two respondents by the learned Sessions Judge.
8. So far as the case of Aslam and Sharif respondents is concerned, it may be observed, that allegations against them are that they while armed with sticks gave a chase to the first informant and his brother Muhammad Din who escaped unhurt. No over act vis-a-vis. The deceased is attributed to these two respondents. Merely giving a chase while armed with ordinary sticks without causing injury to P. Ws. Does not amount to an attempted murder, an offence falling within prohibitory clause. In Mahla and others v. The State (1976 P Cr. L J 1059) it was held that an accused who caused no injury to the deceased persons and was at the best responsible for causing simple injuries to the P. Ws. Was entitled to be released on bail. Similarly, in Allah Ditta and two others v.
The State (1972 P Cr. L J 427) two of the accused involved in a murder case carrying dangs which they never used were admitted to bail.
9. For the foregoing reasons the order allowing bail to Aslam anal Sharif respondents is also unexceptionable.
10. In view of the above, the under consideration two petitions for cancellation of bail are dismissed.