ABDUL HAMEED vs ZAHID HUSSAIN @ PAPU CHAMAN PATIWALA and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting post-arrest bail to the respondents. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred in applying Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, contending that the two cross-FIRs involved different locations and thus did not constitute a single incident requiring further inquiry into the identity of the aggressor. The Supreme Court examined the FIRs and determined that both incidents occurred at the same date, time, and location. Consequently, the Court held that it was not possible to make a tentative finding regarding which party was the aggressor at the bail stage. The Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in granting bail under the principle of further inquiry, as the determination of the aggressor is a matter to be thrashed out during the trial. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
- Does the existence of cross-cases occurring at the same time and place justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order granting bail if no illegality or irregularity is found?
- Is a tentative finding regarding the identity of the aggressor required at the bail stage in cross-cases?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. On 24.2.2010 under the impugned order the High Court has granted bail to the private Respondents on the ground that there were counter cases between the parties and it is yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor therefore their case falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Advocate for petitioner has stated that the incident of the present case was reported to the police and registered as Crime No, 238/2009 at Police Station Kalri whereas the FIR lodged by the petitioner's side was registered as Crime No, 239/2009 at the said Police Station; that the incident of second FIR was committed at different place therefore it cannot be termed that both the incidents took place at one and same place therefore the order of the High Court is required to be set aside and bail granted to the private respondents may be cancelled.
2. We have gone through both, the FIRs and find that incident of both the FIRs took place on 27.9.2009 at 2 a.m. The place of incident of both the cases has also been shown on footpath, corner of Street No, 6-B Suleman Azad Road, New Kalri, Karachi. From this position it is prima facie clear that the incidents of both the FIRs took place on the same date, time and place. However this point can be properly thrashed out at the time of trial but presently no, exception can be taken with regard to the said position. We have also examined both the FIRs and find that no tentative findings could be given as to which party is aggressor therefore in the circumstances the High Court was justified in granting the bail to the Respondents. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity as such it does not require any interference. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.