MUHAMMAD SAJJAD etc. vs STATE etc.
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Sajjad and others in respect of case FIR No. 191/2008 registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in a belated cross-version arising from a protracted enmity between the parties and previous litigation. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners made out a case for further inquiry within the parameters of Section 497 read with Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the nine-month delay in recording the cross-version, the falsity of allegations against co-accused, existing enmity, and the tentative nature of the injuries. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, establishing that unexplained delay in a cross-version and palpable enmity between rival parties can strongly point towards mala fides, warranting pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a cross-version is recorded after a significant unexplained delay of nine months?
- Does previous enmity between rival parties raise the possibility of mala fides in criminal implication for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be confirmed where injuries attributed to the accused are found to be not even visible upon physical inspection during proceedings?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(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
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners Muhammad Sajjad, Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Riaz all sons of Muhammad Nawaz seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 191/2008 dated 19.05.2008 registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan, for offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337- A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, 149 PPC.
2. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sajjad petitioner is the complainant of the case in hand; however, they are seeking bail in cross-version recorded at the instance of accused party which was recorded on 15.02.2009, after about nine months of the registration of original FIR; that they have been involved in the case for ulterior motives; whereas Muhammad Riaz Petitioner No,3 is the complainant in another case FIR No,666/2008 under Section 395 etc registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan against the accused party and complainant of present cross-version. In the cross-version 14 accused have been implicated out of which eight have been nominated with specific role; whereas these injuries were caused allegedly to the complainant of cross-version/injured PW; Medico legal examination of the complainant of cross-version was conducted on 18.05.2008.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submit that out of fourteen accused only these three petitioners were found guilty. The learned counsel for the complainant adds that no malice and malafide was attributed to the complainant of cross-version and that the petitioners assaulted the complainant of cross-version by committing criminal tress pass in his house and thus not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In support of his contentions reliance is placed upon 2006 P.Cr.L.J 1798, 2006 P.Cr.L.J 2423, 2007 P.Cr.L.J 615, and 2009 P.Cr.L.J 132.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the present petitioners are complainant of two FIRs registered against accused party/complainant of cross-version. Enmity exists between the parties. Cross-version was recorded after the A delay of nine months. The version put forward by the complainant of cross- version qua eleven accused have been found false; the element of malafide of the cross-version cannot be ruled out. Injured PW is present in the Court. I have seen injuries allegedly caused by the petitioners which are not even visible. However, without commenting upon the merits of the case so that it might not prejudice the case of either of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry within the parameters of Section 497 Cr.P.C., read with Section 498 Cr.P.C.
6. Consequently ad-interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioners vide order dated 13.04.2009 is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- (one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the statistician of the learned trial Court.
7. Before parting I may observe that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by any observations made in this order, which are tentative in nature & for the purpose of bail only.