MUHAMMAD ASIM vs STATE and 2 others
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Asim in connection with FIR No. 292 dated 5.9.2008 registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on a cross-version and the rule of consistency, given that injuries were sustained by both sides in the same occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that since both parties sustained injuries supported by medico-legal certificates and the question of who initiated the aggression is a matter for trial, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that in cross-version cases where rival parties sustain injuries and the aggressor cannot be definitively determined without recording evidence, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in a cross-version case where both parties have sustained injuries in the same occurrence?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused in a cross-case have already been granted bail?
- Whether determination of the aggressor in a mutual fight is a matter for further inquiry at the trial stage?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
A case was registered vide FIR No, 292 dated 5.9.2008 on written application of Muhammad Rafique under Sections 337-F(v)/337A(i)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni.
Cross version was set-up in the aforesaid case wherein it was alleged that Muhammad Asim- petitioner while armed with sota alongwith his co-accused Niaz, Afzal, Abid and Riaz launched it criminal assault. The petitioner seeks bail through the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of cross-version. All of his co- accused and the accused of the FIR case were on bail. He was also e titled to bail in view of rule of consistency. Reliance was placed on the authorities reported in 1996 SCM R 1845, 1983 "SCMR 1001 and PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34.
3. Opposing the petition learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that injury attributed t the petitioner resulted in fracture of nasal bone. The petitioner and his co-accused were the aggressors. Sufficient material existed on record to make a case against the petitioner the punishment for which fell under prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He, therefore, was not entitled to any concession.
4. Admittedly in the same occurrence, the petitioner himself along with Rashid & Shafique were caused injuries. There is nothing on the record that the injuries recorded in their medico legal certificates were fake. It shall be determined after recording of evidence that who amongst the parties initiated the aggression.
5. In view of the above, this is found to be a case of further inquiry. The petitioner, therefore, is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the