MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another vs THE STATE
This is a bail application filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by petitioners Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Waris, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving cross-versions of an occurrence. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the existence of cross-versions, the nature of the injuries sustained by both sides, and the recovery of weapons. The Court observed that both sides had sustained injuries and that multiple individuals from both parties remained at large. The Court held that in cases of cross-versions where injuries are present on both sides and the determination of the primary aggressor is complex, granting bail at the initial stage could be detrimental. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that the recovery of weapons and the severity of the injuries, which fall under the prohibitory clause of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered the grant of bail inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings.
- Is bail appropriate in a case of cross-versions where injuries are sustained by both sides and the primary aggressor is yet to be determined?
- Does the recovery of a weapon and the involvement of offences under the prohibitory clause justify the refusal of post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioners Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Waris have moved this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. For grant of post-arrest bail through their learned counsel. The above- mentioned two petitioners stand implicated through a cross-version in F.I.R. No.730 of 2004, dated 12-8-2004 of Muhammad Hameed who himself stands implicated in the above F.I.R. The above- said F.I.R. No.730 of 2004 was registered at the complaint of one Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ibrahim who himself in the cross-version, is an accused. According to the cross- version, petitioner Muhammad Akram caused two hatchet injuries to Muhammad Ibrahim and petitioner Muhammad Waris caused Sotas blows to Muhammad Hameed, complainant of the cross-version.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that MLRs of Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Waris were conducted by the doctor on 11-8-2004 at 9-35 p.m. And on the same day at 10-45 p.m. Respectively. He further contends that F.I.R. No.730 of 2004 was registered at 12-30 a.m. On 12-8-2004 on the complaint of Muhammad Aslam whereas complaint of Muhammad Hameed was filed on 14-8-2004 even after the Medico-legal reports above-mentioned. He further contends that the cross-version wherein the petitioners stand implicated is a counter-blast. He also contends that in presence of two cross-versions, it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor, hence it is a case of further inquiry. In addition to above, he contends that no weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioners who are behind the bars since August, 2004.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State contends that it is correct that occurrence had taken place on 11-8-2004 at 6 p.m. And the F.I.R. No.730 of 2004 was registered at 12-30 a.m. On 12-8-2004. He further contends that Muhammad Hameed gave application to S.H.O.
On 12-8-2004 but his cross-version was recorded on 13-8-2004, which fact stands embodied in the police record. He contends that Sota has been recovered from petitioner Muhammad Waris. He also contends that offence under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. Provides 10 years imprisonment along with Arsh and the offence also falls under prohibitory clause. The other accused are yet to be arrested. He adds that one Muhammad Anwar has also been arrested from the other side.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the record has also been seen.
5. Both the learned counsel for the parties agree that there are cross-versions of the occurrence. It is also clear from the record that people from both sides have been injured. Several persons are nominated from both sides, majority of them are still at large. Concession of bail at this stage, under above circumstances, is likely to cause more harm. Sota has been recovered from petitioner Muhammad Waris who caused two injuries on the person of Muhammad Hameed, on his forehead and nose. The petitioner Muhammad Akram has also caused two injuries . On the person of Muhammad Ibrahim. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to grant concession of bail at this stage. In view of the above discussion, this application is dismissed.