MUHAMMAD ASIM vs THE STATE and 2 others
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a cross-version case registered under sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of consistency and as a case of further inquiry, given that a cross-version of the incident exists and injuries were sustained by both parties. The Lahore High Court held that since both sides sustained injuries in the same occurrence and the medico-legal certificates were not proven fake, it remains to be determined at trial which party initiated the aggression. Consequently, the court ruled that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry and admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cross-version cases where both parties have sustained injuries and the question of who was the aggressor requires the recording of evidence, the case is one of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused in a cross-version case is entitled to bail when both parties have sustained injuries in the same occurrence?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the question of who initiated the aggression is to be determined after recording evidence?
- 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
'SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---A case was registered vide FIR No,292, dated 5-9-2008 on written application of Muhammad Rafique under sections 337-F(v)/337-A(i)/ 337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Chichawatni. Cross version was setup in the aforesaid case wherein it was alleged that Muhammad Asim-petitioner while armed with sota along with his co-accused Niaz, Afzal, Abid and Riaz launched is 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 F.I.R. Case were on bail. He was also entitled to bail in view of rule of consistency. Reliance was placed on the authorities reported in 1996 SCM R 1845, 1983 SCM R 1001 and PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34.
3. Opposing the petition, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that injury attributed to 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 and. 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