TARIQ alias BOGI vs THE STATE and anothers
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 167 registered under sections 324, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged armed attack arising from a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the general nature of the allegations, the rule of consistency, and the existence of a cross-version. The Court observed that the initial F.I.R. assigned only a general role to the petitioner, and co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that a specific incriminating statement against the petitioner was recorded with a seven-day delay without sufficient explanation. Additionally, the existence of a cross-version, which had been revived by police authorities, created ambiguity regarding the identity of the initial aggressor. Holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that these observations were tentative and intended solely for the bail application.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail?
- Can a delayed statement by an injured witness, recorded without explanation, justify the denial of bail?
- Does the existence of a cross-version regarding the identity of the aggressor bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Tariq alias Bogi through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,167 registered under sections 324/427/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station, Manga Mandi, Lahore on 15-3-2010.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 15-3-2010 at about 6/7-00 a.m. Tariq (petitioner) having firearm along with others armed with different weapons, in prosecution of the common objectives of the unlawful assembly formed by them, has resorted to firing at the spot and as a consequence of the same, complainant, Muhammad Nazir, his maternal nephews, Muhammad Nawaz and. Muhammad Iqbal were injured. They also have torn the tyres of their tractor. The incident has taken place on the dispute between the parties over land.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that according to the narration of the F.I.R, the role assigned to all the accused is of general in nature. There is no specific role to any of the accused nominated therein.
4. It is admitted position on the record that all the accused except the petitioner have been allowed bail. The learned D.P.-G., when questioned that if his case according to the prosecution story in the F.I.R. Is at par with that of those co-accused, his answer is in the affirmative. Thus, the rule of consistency is attracted to his case.
5. However, according to him, Muhammad Nawaz injured on 22-3-2010, has made statement assigning him specific role of having fired at him.
6. This statement of the said witness was stately recorded after seven days of the alleged incident.
The learned D.P.-G. Was questioned that if he (injured Muhammad Nawaz), according to the record was unable to make statement during the intervening period, his answer to that is in the negative.
7. Hence, the question of evidentiary value of such delayed statement of that injured, P.W. Is to be gone into at trial.
8. In view of the general role assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R., the question of his vicarious liability in the matter is also to be determined at trial.
9. Admittedly, there is cross-version from the side of the petitioner. From their side two persons namely Rehmat Ali and Mst. Sumaira have statedly have been injured. The learned D.P.-G. Has informed that at one stage, their cross-version was cancelled but now D.S.P. Nao Lakha, Lahore on 23-9-2010, has revived/restored their such version. It is, therefore, yet to be seen that which of the parties was aggressor and who aggressed upon. His case, therefore, fails within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. He is stated to be behind the bars since 24-9-2010 and his trial has not yet commenced.
11. In these circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
12. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
13.I may mention here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.
D