GHULAM ALI and others vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose from a cross-version case registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F-A(v), and 337-L(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners argued that the cross-version was a retaliatory, malicious fabrication and that the medical evidence was doubtful. The Lahore High Court examined the medical reports and the specific roles attributed to each petitioner. For petitioner Ghulam Ali, the court noted that the Medical Board had declared the head injury attributed to him as doubtful upon re-examination, thereby rendering his case one of further inquiry. Conversely, the injury attributed to petitioner Bilal Ahmad, which resulted in a bone fracture, was confirmed by the Medical Board, and no malice or ulterior motive could be shown against the complainant. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail of Ghulam Ali but dismissed the bail petition of Bilal Ahmad.
- Whether a medical board's finding declaring an injury doubtful makes the accused's case one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted where the specific injury attributed to the accused is confirmed by a medical board and no malice is shown on the part of the complainant?
- Does the mere existence of a cross-version case automatically entitle all accused persons to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F-A(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.-Bilal Ahmad the petitioner No,2 was initially complainant of F.I.R. No,638 of 2008 under sections 452, 148 and 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Sillanwali District Sargodha.
During the investigation, of this F.I.R, a cross-version was also recorded of Muhammad Siddique (one of the accused) in the said F.I.R. No,638 wherein it was alleged that on 18-11-2008 at about 3- 00 p.m. While he was in the dera of the animals along with his wife Mst. Kausar Bibi and sister Haleema Bibi, the accused Ghulam Ali armed with hatchet, Muhammad Bilal and Ijaz Hussain holding Sotas, Asif armed with gun came there, Bilal gave him a Sota blow on the right elbow, Ghulam Ali gave a hatchet blow on the head of Mst. Kausar Bibi, In the meanwhile Mst. Shakooran Bibi and Manzoor Bibi also came there. The former was having a hunter in her hand with which she started beating Mst. Haleema Bibi. Sajjad also came there and the accused started beating the complainant party.
2. It is in the above-mentioned crossversion case that the petitioners Ghulam Ali and Bilal have applied for prearrest bail under section 498 of the Cr.P.C. In the cross-version the offence under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F-A(v) and 337-L(i) PiP.C. Have been incorporated. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the cross-version is false and a retaliation to the case F.I.R.
No,638 and as such result of malice and ulterior motive of the complainant of crossversion. It has also been argued that the injury alleged against Ghulam Ali petitioner on the, head of Mst. Kausar Bibi was initially declared "Shajja Madiha" but on re-examination the medical Board has declared it doubtful. The learned counsel further argued that Muhammad Siddique complainant subsequently in a written application to the Investigating Officer changed the attribution inter se the petitioners which rendered the case doubtful and of further inquiry.
3. On behalf of the complainant Muhammad Siddique the submission of application regarding the charge of attribution has been denied and disowned.
4. The learned APG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant maintained that the accused other than the petitioners are absconders and both the petitioners are equally liable for the serious offence alleged in the cross-version and as such are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. It is not denied that on reexamination of the injured Mst. Kausar Bibi the injury attributed to Ghulam Ali had been declared doubtful which renders it a case of further inquiry against Ghulam Ali. The ad interim bail granted to Ghulam Ali petitioner is, therefore, confirmed, provided he submits his bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate.
6. The case of Bilal accused is however, different to that of Ghulam Ali petitioner No,l. The injury alleged against him resulted in the fracture of the bone of the arm of the complainant and the same has been endorsed by the medical Board as well. From the circumstances no malice or ulterior motive can be gathered against the complainant for the role attributed to Bilal Ahmad petitioner No,2. I, therefore, do not find any cogent reason for concession of extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail to Bilal Ahmad-petitioner. The bail petition to the extent of Bilal Ahmad-petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.