Muhammad Safiullah vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Safiullah, who sought release in a criminal case involving cross-versions of an incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of a cross-version and the suppression of injuries sustained by the petitioner's side in the initial First Information Report. The petitioner contended that he and two others were injured, yet these injuries were omitted from the prosecution's account, rendering the case one of further inquiry. The State conceded that the investigation revealed injuries to the petitioner's side that were not initially recorded. The Court, without delving into the merits to avoid prejudicing the trial, held that the existence of a cross-version and the discrepancy regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner's side established a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case involves cross-versions and suppressed injuries, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case constitute grounds for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the FIR a relevant factor for the grant of bail?
- Should a court determine the aggressor in a cross-version case at the bail stage?
ORDER
KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-- lt is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that three persons from the side of the petitioner, namely, Safiullah (petitioner), Saeed and Sharif were also injured but their injuries have been suppressed; that there is only one injury on the head of the injured-complainant; that is a case of two versions and that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry.
2. Learned State counsel submits that two of the accused persons are found to be innocent as they were present in Karachi.
3. ASI present in Court submits that during investigation, it came to light that three persons from the side of the petitioner were injured including the petitioner but their injuries are not mentioned in the FIR and that the challan has been submitted in the FIR and the cross-version on 16.9.2004.
3. Heard. Without going into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice case of either side, record shows that that it is a case of cross version, lt is for the learned Trial Court to see as to which was the aggressor one but presently I fined that, to the extent of the petitioner, lt is a case of further inquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.