YOUNUS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a criminal case involving allegations of causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly given the circumstances of the cross-version of the incident and the injuries sustained by the accused party. The Court observed that the prosecution had suppressed the injuries sustained by the petitioner and two other co-accused during the occurrence. Furthermore, the injury attributed to the petitioner against the injured prosecution witness was simple in nature, and the petitioner was not alleged to have caused harm to the deceased. The Investigating Officer had also directed that a cross-version case be registered against the complainant party. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The bail petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused and the existence of a cross-version are significant factors favoring the grant of bail.
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused during an occurrence justify the grant of bail?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution fails to account for injuries on the accused side?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is not alleged to have caused the death of the deceased and the injuries attributed to him are simple in nature?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as petitioner is concerned, only simple injury on the person of Younus injured P.W. Is attributed to him, that including the petitioner two other co- accused were also injured in this case and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, that after the investigation, it had been ordered by the Investigating Officer that complainant party should also be challaned in this case and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that after the occurrence complainant party was so much worried and took the deceased in an injured condition to the General Hospital, Lahore, that in fact petitioner was not injured during the occurrence, that injuries on the person of the petitioner are self-suffered and the offence alleged against him falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, three persons from the side of the petitioner including the petitioner were injured and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. The injury attributed to the petitioner to the injured P.W. Namely Younus is simple in nature. S.-I. Present in Court submits that an order has been passed by the Investigating Officer that a cross-version should also be registered against the complainant party. As the petitioner has not touched the deceased and moreover from the petitioner sides including the petitioner three persons were also injured and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.