RIYASAT ALI and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Riyasat Ali and Maqbool Hussain, in relation to FIR No. 404/04 registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, given the allegations of cross-version involvement and the nature of the injuries attributed to them. The Court observed that the petitioners were implicated in a cross-version case, and the police had subsequently deleted Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted inconsistencies in the medical evidence regarding the weapon attributed to the first petitioner and the fact that the second petitioner was allegedly empty-handed. Holding that the possibility of false implication due to malice and mala fide intent could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners, subject to the furnishing of fresh bail bonds. The decision emphasizes that in cross-version cases, the determination of the aggressor party is a matter of further inquiry.
- Whether a case involving a cross-version of events warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail pending further inquiry?
- Does the deletion of a specific penal section by the police during investigation impact the entitlement to bail?
- Can the possibility of false implication in a cross-version case constitute grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, 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
Petitioners seek pre-arrest bails in case FIR No, 404/04 dated 15.12.2004 u/S. 337-A(i)/337-A(ii)337- F(i)/394 PPC registered on the complaint of Muhammad Sarfraz at Police Station Chowk Azam District, Layyah.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that aforementioned criminal case was originally got registered by petitioner's party against Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Ameen and Munir Ahmad u/S. 337- A(i)/337-F(v)/337 L(2)/34 PPC. During the investigation petitioners alongwith Muhammad Sarfraz and Muhammad Iqbal were involved in cross-version recorded vide Zimni No, 1 dated 15.12.2004 with the allegation that they caused injuries to Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Ameen.
3. Petitioners were involved on the statement of Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Amin in the cross version.
4. Petitioners approached the learned trial Court for their pre-arrest hails. which were declined hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case of the petitioners is that of further inquiry and the local notice has falsely involved them in connivance with accused party. Further submits that it is yet to be determined which party was aggressor. .
6. On the other hand learned counsel 'for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bait petition and submits that petitioners were aggressors and Section 394 PPC had been added. That the petitioners have mis-used the concession of bail, they did not appear before the learned trial Court when the order was announced. Further submit that they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioners were allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail and after that they joined the investigation. During investigation Section 394 PPC has been deleted by the police. Role attributed to the petitioner Riasat Ali is that while armed with sota he caused injuries to Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Azeem. Even if the recovery of sota is effected that will not improve the case of the other party as injury attributed is an incised wound meaning thereby not by, blunt weapon. Petitioner No, 2 Maqbool Hussain was admittedly empty handed. Even otherwise case was originally got registered on behalf of petitioners side and accused of said case got recorded their cross-version implicating petitioners and other persons. therefore, false implication of the petitioner due to malice and male fide intention cannot be ruled out. Bail already granted to the petitioners in the circumstances is hereby confirmed subject to their fresh furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.