HASHMAT ALI vs THE STATE
This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 452, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of participating in an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to a prosecution witness with a blunt weapon, though not the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of two conflicting versions of the occurrence, specifically noting that the complainant party failed to disclose injuries sustained by the accused side in the F.I.R. The Court held that because both parties sustained injuries during the same occurrence and the F.I.R. was silent regarding the injuries of the accused, the matter constituted a case of two versions requiring further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where there is no allegation of causing injury to the deceased and the case involves cross-versions of aggression, the accused is entitled to bail pending trial.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to disclose injuries sustained by the accused in the F.I.R. constitute a case of two versions?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no allegation of causing injury to the deceased and the case involves cross-versions of the occurrence?
- Does the existence of two versions of an occurrence necessitate further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 53/2009 dated 8- 3-2009 for offence under sections 302/324/452/ 337-F0M/337-F(II)/337-L0D/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Registered at Police Station Balochni Faisalabad.
3. ' In brief prosecution case is that on 8-6-2009 at 2-00 p.m., petitioner and his co-accused being armed with 'danda' and other blunt weapons while forming an unlawful assembly launched an attack on the complainant party and caused injuries to their adversaries as a result of which six persons received injuries and later on one of them namely Sana Ullah succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that of causing injuries to Sami Ullah (P.W.) with `Danda'.
4. ' During investigation petitioner was arrested on 4-4-2009, his bail application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, vide order dated 23-7-2009. Hence this petition.
5. ' Bail is sought on the ground that it is a case of two versions because during the occurrence petitioner and six persons from the accused side also received injuries, but the complainant while lodging the F.I.R. Had deliberately concealed this fact. Further submits that it is yet to be determined as to which party had aggressed and thus the case of the petitioner falls within the fold of further inquiry. It is also submitted that petitioner never caused any injury to the deceased but the allegation against him is that of causing simple injuries to one of the prosecution witnesses.
6. ' Conversely learned counsel for the complainant while opposing bail application submits that during investigation the cross version of the occurrence was found false and the same had been cancelled. Further submits that petitioner caused injuries to Sami Ullah (P.W.) on the vital part of the, body and his intention was to commit his murder. The petitioner and his co accused after forming unlawful assembly had launched attack and in furtherance of their common intention had caused injuries to the deceased and witnesses and that he is liable for the offence under section 302 P.P.C. As well.
7. ' After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I have observed that during the occurrence both the parties had received injuries because the duration of injuries on the bodies of injured persons as it is apparent from the Medico- A legal Reports tally with the time of occurrence. These Medico-legal Reports also show that the parties were taken to the hospital by the police on the day of occurrence. Interestingly the case was registered after many hours of the occurrence, i.e,, much after the medical examination of both the parties but the F.I.R. Is silent qua the injuries on the petitioner and other accused persons. The circumstances available on the record show that it is a case of two versions and which of the party had aggressed is yet to be determined by the trial Court. Petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and the precise allegation against him is that of causing injury to one of the prosecution witnesses. Similarly, during this occurrence petitioner had also received injuries and in such-like situation normally if there is no allegation qua causing injuries to the deceased the bail is granted to the accused person on the principle of further inquiry. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac (Rs,1,00,000) with one sqrety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.