MUHAMMAD RASHID vs THE STATE
The petitioner filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 156, registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), and 337-L(2)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted a Kassi blow on the complainant, resulting in severe injuries, including the separation of fingers. Conversely, the petitioner contended that a cross-version case had been registered, wherein five individuals from the complainant's party were challaned for injuring the petitioner's family members. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of a cross-version case and the uncertainty regarding which party acted as the aggressor. The Court held that since a cross-version had been registered and it remained to be determined at trial which party was the aggressor, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The principle laid down is that where a cross-version case exists and the identity of the initial aggressor is disputed, the determination of culpability is a matter for trial, justifying the grant of bail to the accused.
- Does the existence of a cross-version case, where the identity of the aggressor is disputed, constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the determination of the initial aggressor in a cross-version case a matter to be decided at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.156 dated 27-8-2004 registered under section 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Dhonate District Lodhran.
2. According to the F.I.R. Itself, the allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted Kassi blow on the right hand of the complainant, as a result of which joint of hand was cut and the four fingers were separated from the joint.
3. According to the cross-version registered at the instance of the petitioner party, the complainant party injured petitioner's brother, father and sister with their weapons.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that five persons, namely, Maqbool Ahmad, Muhammad Mazhar, Abdul Hameed, Allah Bachaya and Muhammad Rafique, named in the cross-version registered at the instance of the petitioner party have been challaned and it is yet to be determined as to which party was aggressor.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the complainant was injured at the hands of the petitioner and that registration of cross- version is no ground to grant bail to the person against whom specific role is attributed.
5. It is an admitted fact that a cross-version has been registered at the instance of the petitioner party and above-mentioned five persons have been challaned in the cross-version and it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.