SULTAN vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant in a case involving counter-versions and cross-cases between the parties. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the rule of consistency and the principle governing counter-cases, where all co-accused and the opposing party had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that in cases of counter-versions, it is yet to be determined at the trial stage which party was the actual aggressor. Consequently, the Court determined that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing that making detailed comments on the merits of the case at the bail stage should be avoided to prevent prejudice to either party, and applied the principle that both parties in cross-cases should generally be treated on an equal footing regarding liberty pending trial.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry in a case involving counter-versions where the aggressor is yet to be determined at trial?
- Does the grant of bail to all co-accused and the opposing party in a cross-case support the grant of bail to the remaining accused under the rule of consistency?
- Should a court refrain from making detailed comments on the merits of a case at the bail stage to avoid prejudicing the trial?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMAD, J.---It is stated by the learned counsel that there are counter cases between the parties, the other side has already been granted bail. As far present case is concerned, all the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court as well as trial Court. Only the present accused is remaining in jail. The main argument of the learned counsel is that although in the F.I.R. The main part has been attributed to the present applicant but is yet to be decided at the trial stage as to who is aggressor in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail.
2. ' Learned Advocate for the State states that in the cases of counter-version it is settled law that both the parties are to be kept at bar. In the present case, the other side has already been granted bail by the Court. Many accused in this case have been granted bail and only the present applicant remains in jail. Learned State counsel does not oppose the bail.
3. ' I have heard both counsel as well as learned State counsel. I have perused the record the impugned order of the learned trial Court. At the bail stage I will refrain from making any comments on the merits of the case as this may prejudice the case of either party. However, keeping in view the principle exercised in the case of counter-version that it is yet to be determined at the trial as to which party was aggressor, I admit the present applicant to bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Holding the case as one of further inquiry. The applicant is granted bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 150