NAZEER AHMAD and another vs STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 370/2008 registered under Sections 337-F(V), 337-F(VI), 337-I(II), 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought confirmation of their pre-arrest bail, contending that the complainant party were the initial aggressors who trespassed into their house, leading to a cross-version case where the complainant party was also charged. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the cross-version and the nature of the injuries. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the investigation revealed the complainant party had unlawfully trespassed into the petitioners' house, making the occurrence a reaction to that aggression. Furthermore, the Court observed that the injuries attributed to the first petitioner were bailable, and the second petitioner's case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and no further recovery was required.
- Does the existence of a cross-version case where the complainant party is the initial aggressor justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed if the accused has fully joined the investigation and no further recovery is required?
- Section 337-F(V), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(VI), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-I(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Nazeer Ahmad and Muhammad Tayyab, petitioners, through this petition, seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 370 dated 09.11.2008, offence under Sections 337-F(V)/337-F(VI)/337-I(II)/337-A(i)/34 PPC registered at Police Station, Sahuka, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as per FIR is that the accused Nazeer Ahmad armed with iron rod, Tariq armed with Sariya and Tayyab armed with sota came on the spot. Nazeer petitioner gave blow with iron rod on the head of the complainant, whereas Tariq gave a blow on the left blow, than Tayyab gave sota blow on left arm of the complainant. The accused Nazeer gave a blow on the head of left thigh of the complainant.
3.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that in the present case a cross version was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Tariq son of Petitioner No, 1 and brother of Petitioner No, 2 vide Report No, 7 dated 05.01.2009 and in that cross version Muhammad Saeed has been challaned under Sections 452/337-A(i) PPC and during the investigation it was concluded by the Investigating Officer that in fact the complainant party of F.I.R. firstly entered in the house of the petitioners, attacked upon them and than took them at the street in the front of their house. All these facts would show that in fact the complainant party of FIR was the mischief monger and the occurrence was the result of re-action when complainant party of FIR illegally and unlawfully trespassed into the house of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the injuries attributed to Petitioner No, 1 falls within the purview of bailable offence, whereas, case of Petitioner No, 2 does not fall within the prohibition contained under sub section (1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It has not been denied by the learned DPG, on perusal of the police record that the petitioners have been joining the investigation, so prima facie nothing is to be recovered and if recovery is to be effected that bail granting order cannot be a bar in the way of the Investigating Officer. Case law i.e 2005 P.Cr.L.J 1768, relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable in the present case, as in this case the complainant party entered in the house of the petitioners.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioners pre-arrest bail granted earlier vide order dated 25.02.2009 is hereby confirmed provided they furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.