- Only the allegation of ‘lalkara’ is attributed to respondent No.2 — He was not armed with any kind of weapon — There is nothing on record to show that he was aware that his son Liaqat Hussain was armed with a pistol — It also could not be ignored that the society in which we are living, if one member of a family commits a crime then whole of the family members are dragged into the case — Only the allegation of ‘lalkara’ is attributed — No overt act was attributed — It would not be expedient to award him the punishment of life imprisonment or 10 years R.1.merely on the basis of ‘lalkara’ — The sentence awarded by the lower Courts to respondent No.2 (appellant) is set aside in criminal appeal No. 48 of 2005. Liaqat H. v. Ulfat Khan & another 2007 SCR 39 (I)
- Bail — Grant of — Lalkara — the true import of lalkara has to be judged after recording the evidence but at bail stage, lalkara has to be looked in the light of total circumstances of the case — If the accused is attributed mere lalkara then too, it has to be looked upon that what is the effect of mere lalkara — If a person who is attributed mere lalkara, has an influence upon the other co-accused, who being under his influence are bound to accept this, then mere lalkara is sufficient for refusal of bail — An accused who is attributed lalkara has no influence over the other co-accused, he cannot be refused bail on the basis of mere lalkara — Where an accused apart from raising lalkara is attributed some other overt act, then such person is not entitled for concession of bail. Khalid Mehmood v. The State & another 2015 SCR 588 (C) 2013 SCR 92 rel.
error: Content is protected !!