Wajid vs The State
The applicant, Wajid, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a shooting incident. The prosecution alleged the applicant was part of a group that attacked the complainant's family. The applicant contended innocence, noting that no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR and that the injured witnesses did not implicate him in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the applicant highlighted a counter-version of the incident, wherein he had previously registered a case against the complainant's brother regarding the murder of his cousin. The Court observed that the absence of a specific role and the existence of counter-versions of the same incident necessitated further inquiry. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held that where counter-versions exist, the case falls under the purview of further inquiry as contemplated by Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the determination of the true version is a matter for the Trial Court after recording evidence. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
- Does the existence of a counter-version of the same incident entitle an accused to the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Is a case considered to require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there are conflicting versions of the same occurrence?
- Should bail be granted when the FIR contains a general allegation but the injured witnesses fail to implicate the accused in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J. - Applicant Wajid has been booked in Crime No. 228/10 registered at P.S. Malir Cantt. For offence under Sections 324/34, P.P.C.
2. The contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 11.12.2010 at 5 p.m. Accused Saeed Khan and his two sons namely Wajid and Sajid alias Sani and their relative Waqas were standing in front of door of the complainant Necklase. They were knocking the door of his house by kicking and using filthy language. During such commotion, Mst. Parveen, mother of the complainant, his brother Haroon alias Moon emerged out from their house following which accused Saeed Khan and his two sons started firing upon them resultantly Mst. Parveen, Haroon alias Moon and Raheel received injuries. Such F.I.R. Was registered on the very same day.
3. It is, inter alia, contended that the applicant is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence; there is general allegation against all the male members of the applicant's family and no specific role is attributed to the present applicant; injured P.Ws. Mst. Parveen, Haroon alias Moon and Raheel have not implicated the present applicant in their respective 161, Cr.P.C. Statements., Per learned counsel, there is a counter version in respect of same occurrence as prior to this a case under Crime No. 227/2010 was registered by the present applicant against Moon, brother of complainant Necklase Masih.
4. Conversely, learned A.P.G. Though opposed the bail plea of the applicant but could not controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. No doubt name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. As one of the culprits who launched murderous assault at the complainant party, however no specific role is attributed to the present applicant. P.Ws. Mst. Parveen, Haroon alias Moon and Raheel did not implicate the present applicant as one of the assailants in their respective 161, Cr.P.C. Statements.
7. There is yet another aspect of the case viz. Counter-version as on the very same day prior to this case, present applicant had registered a case against Moon, brother of the complainant, for committing murder of his cousin Waqas. Since-there are counter-versions in respect of same incident, one is given by the complainant and another by the present applicant in which Waqas, cousin of the applicant, lost his life at the hands of Moon who has been shown as one of the P.Ws. In Crime No. 228/2010.
8. It is settled law that in case of counter-versions t arising from the same incident one given by the complainant in the F.I.R. And other by opposite party, such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. For the reason that question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the Trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard.
Reference may be made to the case of Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq (1996 SCM R 1845).
9. For the foregoing reasons and in view of dicta laid down in the case of Shoaib Mahmood Butt (supra), I am of the considered view that the case of the applicant requires further enquiry.
Consequently, bail application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.