Muhammad Ishaq And 3 Other vs The State
This matter arises from a criminal petition for bail filed by Muhammad Ishaq and three others before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving a cross-version, two competing challans, and suppressed injuries of the petitioners' side by the prosecution. The court held that since the petitioners did not cause injuries to the deceased (with petitioner Muhammad Khan only causing a simple injury on the finger with a sota) and the trial involving dual challans and cross-versions would take considerable time, the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that where competing versions and cross-challans exist, and the prosecution has suppressed injuries sustained by the accused party, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail to the accused.
- Whether a case involving two competing challans and cross-versions falls under further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does the suppression of injuries of the accused side in the FIR entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the petitioners are not attributed injuries on the vital parts of the deceased?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J,~ I had already granted bail to Habib Ullah etc. In Crl. Misc. No. 8625/B/2004, who were accused in cross-version and in the instant case, FIR was registered on behalf of said party.
2. Allegations against Muhammad Ishaq, Shah Jahan and Umer Hayat petitioners are that they had caused simple injuries on the persons of Asad Ullah, Habib Ullah and Hameed Ullah while allegation against Muhammad Khan petitioner is that he had caused an injury on the finger of the deceased while Umar Hayat and Muhammad Hayat, who are petitioner before this Court, had caused injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased.
3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that two challans have been submitted and now it is a case of two versions, so case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the band, learned counsel for the State assisted by leaned counsel for the complainant submits that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but admits that injuries of the petitioners side have been suppressed by the prosecution have been suppressed by the prosecution in the FIR, that five witnesses in challan case have been examined by the learned Trial Court, so at this stage, bail should not be granted to the petitioners.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they did not cause any injury to the deceased. So far as, Muhammad Khan petitioner No. 4 is concerned, he was armed with sota, he caused simple injury on the. Finger of the deceased while two co- accused Umer Hayat and Muhammad Hayat, who are not petitioner before this Court, have caused injuries on the vital parts of -the body of the deceased. Though the learned Trial Court has examined five witnesses in challan case but it will take lot of time from both the sides because in both challan and cross version the learned Trial Court shall deliver judgments separately. Presently, lt is a case of two versions and covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.
50,000/- (Fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like-amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.