MAQSOOD AHMAD and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a cross-version of a criminal case registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 337-F(v), and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kalrwala, District Sialkot. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the cross-version nature of the FIR, property dispute between the parties, and the grant of bail to the accused in the primary FIR. The Lahore High Court held that since injuries were sustained by both sides, a land dispute existed, possession was handed over to the petitioners by Revenue Authorities, and co-accused with similar roles were already granted bail, the case warranted further inquiry under the law. The court allowed the bail application subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where a property dispute exists, injuries are sustained on both sides, and the principle of consistency applies, the accused are entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a cross-version of the FIR shows injuries sustained by both parties?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused attributed similar roles have been granted bail?
- Can bail be allowed on the ground of further inquiry when the question of who was the aggressor party requires determination at trial?
- 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-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in cross-version of F.I.R. No,104 of 2006, dated 18-5-2006, under sections 324, 148, 149, 337-F(v) and 337-f(iii), P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kalrwala, District Sialkot.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the complainant along with his brothers Asghar Ali and Muhammad Aslam went to their agricultural land they saw somebody ploughing land with tractor. They also saw Maqsood Ahmed armed with Kalashnikov, Abdul Ghafoor alias Kalu armed with Kalashnikov, Allah Rakha armed with .244 bore, Muhammad Arshad alias Baghu armed with 8mm, Bashir Ahmed armed with .12 bore, Maloo armed with Kalashnikov and Muhammad Mansha armed with .223 bore along with three more unknown armed persons. All the above mentioned started firing with their respective weapons aimed at applicant's brother Muhammad Aslam and Asghar Ali. The applicant's brother fell down after receiving injuries. When the applicant reached at the spot armed with .244 bore rifle, the above mentioned accused started firing at him as well and also snatched applicant's rifle.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific injury is attributed to any petitioner. According to him, there is a dispute of property between the parties which is the base of registration of the present ease. He further submits that possession was given to the petitioners on 25-4-2006 through a legal process by Revenue Authorities. The other party tried to take the possession forcibly. He further submits that accused in F.I.R. Have already been granted bail who also are attributed the similar role, therefore, principle of consistency is attracted.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant of the F.I.R. Submits that the petitioners remained absconders and they were found guilty/ aggressor during the course of investigation. He further submits that the injured were caused injuries with fire-arm weapons, therefore, bail should be refused.
5. The combined reading of the F.I.R. And cross-version shows that the injuries were caused on both sides. The said documents also show that there is a dispute of land between both the parties. The opposite party has already been granted bail, therefore, prima facie, principle of consistency is attracted. There is also some evidence that petitioners were in possession of land handed over to them by Revenue Authorities. Therefore, it is difficult in the present proceedings to determine as to who was the aggressor party, etc. And who started the firing first.
6. In view of the above reasons, there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the petitioners, hence, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioners furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each iii the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.