TAHIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of a cross-version of the incident and the uncertainty regarding the identity of the aggressor. The petitioner argued that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting a delay in the FIR and that the occurrence took place on land in his possession. The Court held that because a cross-version had been recorded and was pending investigation, and because it remained unclear which party was the aggressor, the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that in cases of cross-versions where the identity of the aggressor is disputed and requires investigation, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under the bail provisions.
- Does the existence of a cross-version of an incident entitle an accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when it is unclear which party was the aggressor in a criminal altercation?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner and one Akhtar Hussain stand involved in case F.I.R. No.6 of 2004, dated 10-1-2004 registered under section 337-A(i) and A(iii) read with section 34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Chenab Nagar, District Jhang.
2. The allegation against the ipetitioner is that he hit the complainant on his nose as a result of which blood oozed I out. The co-accused of the petitionerhas been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, vide order dated 21-2-2004, whereas vide the same order the petitioner was declined bail.
3. The bail is sought on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are false, that the F.I.R.
Was lodged with the unexplained delay of three days, that the complainant is the aggressor, that it is a case of cross-version and that the case against the petitioner squarely falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Requiring further probe into his guilt.
4. Learned State counsel defended the impugned order, contending Ithat the petitioner caused injury to the complainant, and that sufficient material is On record which connects him with the comriission of offence.
5. I have considered the contentions perused the record. The crops-version of the learned counsel for the parties and against the complainant in this , case has been recorded which is , pending investigation. On Court query, the police officer present in Court, stated that the occurrence took place in the land in possession of the petitioner. Thus it is yet to be decided as to which is the aggressor party. In this view of the matter, the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the