Riaz Hussain, etc. vs The State, etc.
This matter concerns two cross-petitions for pre-arrest bail arising from a single incident involving mutual injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were accused of causing injuries in a case and a cross-version, were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting versions and the nature of the offences charged. The court observed that both parties had participated in the incident and that the injuries attributed to both sides had been suppressed in the initial reports. The court held that because the primary offence charged, Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and because the petitioners had joined the investigation, incarceration would not serve the prosecution's interests. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for both sets of petitioners, ruling that the case constituted one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, with the ultimate determination of liability and the truth of the versions reserved for the trial court.
- Does an offence under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When cross-versions of an incident are filed, is the case generally considered one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to accused persons in a cross-version case where both parties have participated in the incident?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' AALIA NEELUM, J. --- Through this single order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No, 12535-B of 2013 (Riaz Hussain, etc. v. The State, etc.) seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 174, dated 06.07.2013 registered under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad and Crl. Misc. No, 11463-B of 2013 (Miraj, etc. v. The State, etc.) seeking pre-arrest bail in a cross-version registered under Sections 337-A(ii)/337A(i)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/34, P.P.C. As both these petitions arise out of one F.I.R.
2. Brief facts of the case as per F.I.R. Are that on 02.07.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., the petitioners along with their co-accused, while armed with their respective weapons in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to Allah Ditta and Muhammad Amin PWs. Hence, this case.
3. In the cross-version, got registered by Riaz Ahmad accused of F.I.R., it is maintained that the petitioners, while armed with their respective weapons in furtherance of their common intention gave injuries to Riaz Hussain complainant of cross-version and his mother. Hence, the cross- version.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been involved in this case falsely with mala fide intention and with ulterior motives; that the petitioners have no concern with the commission of any offence; that actually the complainant party assaulted upon the petitioners party and cross-version to this extent has also been recorded from the petitioners' side; that the prosecution case is based upon two version and this fact would be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording the evidence; that the local police is bent upon to arrest the petitioners and if the police succeeded, their reputation would be suffered adversely; that joint role was assigned to them; that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the investigation is complete and as such the petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Further contends that the petitioners/accused of cross-version have played active role in the occurrence so they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition by stating that the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R.; that the petitioners caused injuries to Allah Ditta and Muhammad Amin PWs; that recovery of crime weapons are yet to be effected from the petitioners; that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioners in this case; that sufficient material is available on the record against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of offence therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any concession of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. It is stated in the F.I.R. That all the accused persons including the petitioners caused injuries upon Allah Ditta and Muhammad Amin PWs. Whether the occurrence has taken place in the same manner as alleged in the F.I.R. Or not is a question, which will be seen at the time of trial after appraisal of the evidence by the learned Trial Court. The question of vicarious liability will also be determined at the time of trial by the learned Trial Court. The injuries attributed to both sides have been suppressed. However, Section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And sending the petitioners behind the bars from both sides at this stage would be a futile exercise as the same will not advance the prosecution case anymore. It is admitted fact that petitioners joined theinvestigation and Investigating Officer had opined that both the parties had participated in the incident. In this view of the matter, it is a case of further inquiry covered by Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I accept both the petitions and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Ad-interim pre-arrest .