Pakistan Case Law
2011 SCMR 606

ABDUL HAMEED vs ZAHID HUSSAIN alias PAPU CHAMAN PATIWALA and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 SCMR 606
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 50-K of 2010
Date2010-06-16
Judge(s)Anwer Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain and Rahmat Hussain Jafferi
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in granting post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of counter-cases where it was yet to be determined which party was the aggressor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where both First Information Reports indicate that the incidents took place at the same date, time, and place, and no tentative assessment can conclusively determine the aggressor at the bail stage, the granting of bail is justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the impugned order of the High Court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the presence of counter-cases where the aggressor is yet to be determined?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order granting bail when no illegality or irregularity is found?
  • Can tentative findings regarding the aggressor party be given at the bail stage when cross-cases are registered at the same date, time, and place?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailbail cancellationcounter-casesaggressorcriminal procedureSupreme Court of Pakistan

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 of 2009 at Police Station Kalri whereas the F.I.R. Lodged by the petitioner's side was registered as Crime No, 239 of 2009 at the said Police Station; that the incident of second F.I.R. 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 F.I.Rs, and find that incident of both the F.I.Rs, 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 F.I.Rs, 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 F.I.Rs, 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. .

Cited by 10 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.