MUSHTAQ AHMED vs STATE
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 306/2002 registered under Sections 334, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran. The core legal question concerns the petitioner's entitlement to post-arrest bail in a case involving a cross-version, receipt of injuries by the accused, the rule of consistency, and the statutory delay in the commencement of trial. The Lahore High Court held that since the case involves a cross-version where the petitioner sustained multiple injuries including a head injury, other co-accused from both sides had already been granted bail, and there was no progress in the trial, the petitioner made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that bail should be granted under the rule of consistency when co-accused have been released and prolonged incarceration without trial progress serves no useful purpose, particularly in cross-version matters where the accused has also sustained injuries.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when other co-accused from both sides have already been granted bail?
- Does a cross-version involving injuries sustained by the accused provide sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial justifies releasing an accused on bail?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is bail after arrest in case FIR No, 306/2002 dated 29.8.2002 registered on the complaint of Nazar Muhammad u/S. 334/337-A(i)/337-A (ii)/148/149 PPC at police station Saddar Kehror Pacca District Lodhran.
2. According to the prosecution story narrated in the FIR the petitioner armed with iron rod had inflicted injury on the person of cornplainant/injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that infact complainant party was aggressor and they caused six injuries including one head injury to the present petitioner and the complainant party was also implicated and a number of accused were nominated in the cross version got recorded by petitioner's party. Further contends that all the accused of both the sides have already been bailed out, the iron rod recovered from the petitioner was not blood stained and the petitioner is in jail for the last more than one year without any progress in trial and at the same time on the rule of consistency the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. Further more, the case of the petitioner is of cross version as the petitioner himself suffered six injuries including one head injury. He relied on "Shoaib Mehmood Butt vs. Iftikhar ul Haq etc." (1996 SCM R 1845), "Muhammad Aslam vs. State" (1997 SCM R 251) and "Fazal Muhammad vs. Ali Ahmad etc." (1976 SCM R 391).
4. On the other hand learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR, case of the petitioner falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the case of the petitioner is of cross version. All the accused of both the sides have been granted bail except the petitioner. Under the rule of consistency he is entitled to be bailed out. Further more, there is no progress in the trial so far hence, no useful purpose will be served by putting the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with tow sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.