RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a second application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who has been incarcerated since July 23, 2006, in connection with an F.I.R. registered under sections 324, 337-F4, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion and the initiation of a private complaint regarding a cross-version of the occurrence, in which the trial court had issued process against the complainant. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's specific role in the F.I.R. and alleging that trial delays were attributable to the accused's failure to cross-examine witnesses. The Court held that the emergence of a cross-version case, where process had been issued against the complainant, necessitated a determination by the trial court as to which party was the aggressor. Furthermore, noting the petitioner's detention for over one year without trial conclusion, the Court allowed the bail application, finding sufficient grounds to grant relief subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the emergence of a cross-version case in a criminal matter constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Is the determination of which party was the aggressor in a cross-version case a matter to be decided at the trial stage rather than the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F4, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---This is second application seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,56/06 for the offences under section 324/337-F4/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Satgara, District Okara on the ground that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23-7-2006 and the trial has not yet been concluded. It is further submitted that in the private complaint filed by the petitioner with regard to cross-version of the occurrence trial Court has also issued process against the accused including the complainant of this case.
2. ' Conversely, learned counsel for complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing fire-arm injury to Abid; during the trial prosecution witnesses had appeared before the Court, their examination-in-chief was recorded but the accused had not cross- examined the witnesses and this delay in disposal of the matter is due to non-cooperation of the accused side. Submits that ground of two versions about the said occurrence was available to the petitioner at the time when his first application was dismissed.
3. ' Heard File perused.
4. ' First application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 19-10-2006 and at that time admittedly private complaint filed by the petitioner party was not admitted for regular hearing but now the process has been issued qua the accused (including the complainant of challan case). In this view of the matter now this case is of two different versions and it is yet to be determined by the trial Court as to which of the party had aggressed. Similarly, the record of this case, shows that petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year and the case has not been decided by the trial Court. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.