TANVIR and otherss vs THE STATE
This is a petition under sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in the face of specific allegations of firearm injury and cross-versions involving injuries sustained by both parties. The Lahore High Court held that pre-arrest bail for the first petitioner, who admitted to firing and whose firearm injury was supported by medical evidence, should be dismissed, whereas pre-arrest bail for the second petitioner was confirmed on the ground of consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail and due to discrepancy in the number of injuries attributed to multiple accused. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail can be refused to an accused with a specific role and admission of firing causing injury, while rule of consistency applies to co-accused with indistinguishable roles.
- Whether an accused who admits to firing a weapon causing injury is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when granting bail to co-accused facing similar allegations in the same criminal case?
- What is the effect of injuries sustained by the accused party in a cross-version on a pre-arrest bail petition?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F (v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A (ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. Tanvir and Allah Ditta, petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,158, dated 17-4-2005, registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Yousafwala District Sahiwal on the statement of Muhammad Amjad.
2. The brief allegation levelled against the petitioner and others in the F.I.R, is that they while armed with fire-arm and Sota with their common object had injured the complainant, his father and aunt.
The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that one of Nadeem accused had teased the cousin of the complainant who was reprimanded and due to that grudge the accused had committed this offence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Siddique father of petitioner No,1 was also injured and six injuries were found on his person out of which one injury falls within the purview of section 337-F (v), P.P.C. It is further contended that mother of the petitioner No,1 also received four injuries and petitioner No,1 himself received four injuries out of which one falls within the purview of section 337-A (ii), P.P.C. It is also contended that he fired in self-defence at Sadiq which injury only falls within the purview of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. It is next contended that cross- version has been recorded by the police and the injuries received by the petitioner and his parents were attributed to the complainant party and the complainant party who were the aggressor and they had committed heinous offence. It is further contended that the occurrence had taken place near the house of petitioner No,1 and the police has also not found the prosecution version as totally correct and some of the accused have been found innocent during the investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner No,1, while armed with gun had fired at Sadiq but the same was missed and caused injury, as such he has admitted the occurrence. Also contends that Allah Ditta had caused injuries on the persons of father of the complainant and his aunt Mst. Niazan and said Allah Ditta is also named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injuries.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
Tanvir petitioner No,1, while armed with gun had made fire at Sadiq and fire-arm injury was found on the person of Sadiq. Moreover, the petitioner No,1 himself admits that he fired at Muhammad Sadiq but in different manner as he and other relatives were injured by the complainant party and said fire was made in self-defence. Admittedly, the petitioner and his parents only received injuries with blunt weapon and no injury was declared dangerous to life. The recovery of the fire-arm is yet to be effected from him. Hence, this application to the extent of petitioner No,1 is dismissed.
6. As far as Allah Ditta, petitioner is concerned, his co accused namely Nadeem, Atiq-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Sadiq have been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and his case is not distinguishable from the case of the said co-accused who are also named in the F.I.R. And according to the allegation Nadeem, Allah Ditta petitioner and Imran had caused injuries to father of the complainant and Mst. Niazan, but only two injures were found on their persons which falsify the prosecution story that there accused persons including the petitioner had caused injuries to them. In such cir,cumstances, this application to the extent of Allah Ditta petitioner is accepted and ad interim ore-arrest bail granted to the said petitioner vide order dated 14-6-2005 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate.