ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the question of whether an instigation (‘Lalkara’) was effective, or whether it was merely a standard padding to implicate an influential adversary, can only be determined after the recording of evidence at the trial stage.
A two-member bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, announced a detailed judgement in a murder case on Wednesday.
Petitioner Hussain Bux had filed an appeal in the apex court against the judgement passed by the Sindh High Court on February 24, 2026.
The court on May 14, 2026 had passed a short order, allowing the appeal and granting bail after arrest to the appellant, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.
“No direct injury, overt act, physical injury, or firing is attributed to the petitioner, nor has any incriminating recovery been effected from his possession to connect him conclusively with the commission of the offense, as his role is stated to be that of ‘lalkara’ only,” says a four-page detailed judgement authored by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan.
The court held that the role attributed to the petitioner is distinctly separable from that of the principal co-accused, Shoukat Rahimon, who is alleged to have executed the actual crime by opening fire upon the deceased, whereas the role attributed to the present petitioner is limited to an oral provocation or ‘lalkara’ only.
“We, therefore, without touching upon the merits of the case, are of the considered view that the petitioner-accused has been successful in making out a case for the grant of bail. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Qurban Ali v. The State and others (2017 SCMR 279), where bail was granted after finding that the role of the accused was that of ‘lalkara’ only,” said the judgement.
“Needless to state that the observations made above are only tentative in nature and should not prejudice the case of either party at the trial court stage,” the court ruled.
The court noted that advocate Mallag Assa Dashti appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He emphasised that the specific allegation and the role attributed to the petitioner is restricted to a mere verbal assertion of instigation (lalkara) only.
He argued that the FIR was delayed by 11 days without any plausible explanation, casting a serious doubt of fabrication and deliberation on the prosecution’s narrative.
On the other hand, the court noted that the additional prosecutor general appearing for the State has strongly opposed the bail petition. He contended that the offense is heinous and falls within the boundaries of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the CrPC.
He submitted that the petitioner arrived at the crime scene in his own vehicle, duly armed with a weapon, and actively participated in the offense by instigating the principal accused to commit the murder, said the judgement.
