NAZEER MUHAMMAD and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicants challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, in relation to F.I.R. No. 406 of 2009 registered under sections 324, 384, 448, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the complainant in the present case had also lodged a cross-F.I.R. regarding the same incident, time, and place, and had themselves been granted pre-arrest bail in a related matter. Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar circumstances, the Court held that where cross-versions of an incident exist, it is inappropriate to make tentative findings regarding which party is the aggressor at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants, subject to the enhancement of the surety amount to ensure consistency with the bail conditions imposed on the other party. The principle established is that in cases of cross-F.I.Rs involving identical facts, the issue of aggression is best resolved at trial rather than during bail proceedings.
- Should pre-arrest bail be granted in cross-F.I.R. cases where the incident occurred at the same time and place?
- Is it appropriate for a court to determine which party is the aggressor during the bail stage in cross-version cases?
- Can a court enhance the surety amount upon confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 384, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---In this case, pre-arrestbail application was filed against the order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, dated 28-9-2009, in Criminal Bail Application No,532 of 2009, relating to F.I.R. No,406 of 2009, registered with the Police 'Station Shah Latif Town, for the offences under sections, 324/384/448/34, P.P.C.
2. ' Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No,1 Nazeer Ahmed in this case is the complainant who had lodged F.I.R. No,405 of 2009 with Police Station Shah Latif Town against the complainant of this case for an incident which occurred on same place and at same time. He further submits that the Hon'able Supreme Court in its order in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,50-K of 2010, dated 16-6-2010, had upheld the order of this Court on identical facts where position was prima facie clear that incident of both F.I.Rs, took place on same date, time and place and observed that point could be properly thrashed out at the time of trial but presently no exception could be taken with regard to the said position and no tentative findings could be given as to which party is aggressor and therefore, upheld the order of this Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents.
3. ' I have perused the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After going through the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned A.P.-G. Also did not oppose the confirmation of interim bail earlier granted in this case.
4. ' Interim order dated 5-10-2009 has been passed by this Court wherein the applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Since pre-arrest bail has also been granted to the complainant in this case vide order dated 30-9-2010, in Criminal Bail.
5. Application No,1079 of 2009, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and since facts of both the cases are identical, therefore, I will confirm interim pre-arrest bail to the present applicants by enhancing solvent surety from Rs,100,000 to Rs,200,000 each and PR bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The Nazir is directed that if surety already furnished by the applicants is enough for the quantum of fresh surety then the applicants will remain on same surety but PR bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000 each be taken.
6. ' In the above terms, this Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.