MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 34, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a cross-version case where both the complainant party and the petitioner's side sustained injuries during the occurrence. The complainant alleged that the petitioner fired at the victim, while the petitioner contended that the complainant party was the aggressor and that his brother sustained a serious fracture during the incident. The Court held that because both sides presented cross-versions and both parties had injured witnesses, it was not possible at the bail stage to definitively determine which party was the aggressor. Consequently, the Court ruled that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle established is that in cross-version cases involving injuries on both sides, the determination of the aggressor is a matter for the trial court, rendering the case one of further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Whether a case involving cross-versions with injuries on both sides constitutes a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does the presence of injured witnesses on both sides of a criminal occurrence necessitate a trial court determination of the aggressor?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the complainant party fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused party in a cross-version case?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 514 dated 29.12.2004 under Sections 324/34, 148/149 PPC registered at Police. Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad.
2. The case was registered at the instance of Amjad Nasir Gill. According to the complainant, he, alongwith Abdul Nasir Gill, Nazim of Union Council No, 272 and Rana Liaquat Ali went to the shop of Liaquat Ali in All Housing Scheme for taking breakfast. Muhammad Javed Iqbal and others were present at the spot. In the meanwhile. Muhammad Arshad, armed with .222 bore rifle, Sarfraz, armed with .30 bore pistol and two unknown persons, came in vehicle No, LZG-7220. The accused started firing with the weapons, being carried by them. Abdul Nasir, brother of the complainant tried to take refuge in the nearby shop but was followed by accused, who came running to the road and was fired at by Muhammad Arshad, which hit on the left side of abdomen of Abdul Nasir, who fell down, 'whereafter, the accused left the spot.
3. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be that brother of the complainant had a plot of land in Ali. Housing Scheme and accused wanted to forcibly occupy the same.
4. Subsequently, one Habib Ahmed also submitted an application before police for registration of case against Abdul Nasir Gill. Mahmood Gill, Amjad Gill sons of Abdul Majeed Gill and two other persons. According to Habib AhMed, his son Muhammad Javed Iqbal had purchased a plot in Chak No, 220/R.B. Tehsil Faisalabad and he, alongwith his sons, had gone to the plot for raising construction thereon, when the afore-mentioned persons, variously armed. came there that they would not allow them to raise construction. Abdul Nasir Gill, Armed with .30 bore pistol, fired at .laved Iqbal, which shot hit him on left leg, who fell down. Sarfraz went forward and was fired by Liaquat Ali son of Muhammad Ashraf, which hit him on the private parts of the body. The accused, therefore. left the spot.
5. Bail for the petitioner has been sought. for on the ground that it was a case of false-versions and real brother of the petitioner Javed Iqbal was also injured and femur bone of his thigh was fractured and had to undergo various operations. It was submitted that the petitioner was in possession of a plot of land and the other party tried to dispossess him and had attacked him and it was evident from the contents of FIR that the complainant party had gone to the plot of land from their residences and their presence at the spot. when the incident had taken place, went explained. It was submitted that the complainant, party formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the petitioner, his brothers and father and keeping in view the aforesaid factor petitioner deserved the concession of bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant and State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It was submitted that the injured PW in this case had to undergo surgery for a number of times and petitioner had caused that injury and did not deserve the concession of bail. It was submitted that the cross-version, advanced by the petitioner's father, was not accepted by the police but, latter that, was placed on the police file only and petitioner could not get any benefit of the cross- version.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Both the parties had tried to minimize the role prayed by them in the course of occurrence. The fact remains that one person on the complainant side was injured. He had a bullet injury, which, statmgly, was caused by petitioner. Petitioner's brother was also injured and femur bone of his leg was also fractured. No explanation for that. has been furnished by the complainant party, as to how Javed Iqbal was injured. As it is a case of cross versions and there are injured P.Ws on both sides it would be for the trial Court to determine, as to which party was the aggressor and which party was aggressed upon. Therefore, for the present, case of the petitioner is considered to be that of further enquiry and he is allowed bail hi the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.