ABDUL REHMAN vs STATE and another
This judgment concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 337-F(iii), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given conflicting versions of the incident and the injured party's non-cooperation with a medical re-examination. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that if an injured person avoids appearing before a medical board for re-examination, the benefit of such non-appearance extends to the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that where there are two versions of an incident, and a cross-version has been ordered to be recorded, the involvement of the accused may prima facie appear to be an outcome of mala fide intention. The trial court is the proper forum to determine which party was the aggressor.
- What is the effect of an injured party avoiding appearance before a medical board for re-examination on an accused's bail application?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted in a case where there are two conflicting versions of the incident and a cross-version has been ordered?
- Does prima facie mala fide intention on the part of the complainant justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 231 dated 03.10.2014 offence under Section 337- F(iii), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v) and 34 PPC, Police Station Miran Pur Mailsi, District Vehari on the complaint of one Muhammad Iqbal.
2. The prosecution version as mentioned in the FIR is that the petitioner armed with iron rod alongwith his brother co-accused Muhammad Bilal armed with hatchet made murderous assault on the complainant party and caused the injuries. The petitioner has been attributed with the role of injury upon the complainant's son Majid Iqbal.
3. Heard.
4. According to the medical report eight injuries have been shown on the person of injured out of which Injury No, 3 has been attributed to the petitioner which constitutes offence under Section 337-F(iii) and 337-F(i), PPC. Section 337-F(iii), PPC provides punishment of three years RI whereas Section 337-F(i), PPC is bailable. It is on the record that the present petitioner moved an application to the Illaqa Magistrate on 23.10.2014.For re-examination of injuries of injured. The said application was allowed and the matter was referred to the Standing Medical Board for re-examination of the injuries of the victim. The victim was called for couple of times by the said board but he did not turn up despite receipt of notices. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the case of "Zafar Ali Vs. The State" 1997 M LD 215 Lahore and "Muhammad Khan Vs. The State" 2011 PCr.LJ 1746 Karachi.
In the said judgment it is held that if an injured avoids to appear before medical board for re- examination, the benefit of the same would be extended to the accused. This is also on the record that the petitioner's party had also got recorded a cross-version against the complainant party which was not incorporated by the police. Thereafter, petition was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi District Vehari for recording of their cross-version and vide order dated 15.12.2014 police was directed to record cross version of the petitioner's party. The perusal of- police record reveals that co-accused Muhammad Bilal was also injured who has been granted post arrest bail on 31.10.2014.
5. The above circumstances suggest that this is a-case of two versions and the involvement of the petitioner prima facie, seems to be outcome of mala fide intention and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant. The cross-version of the petitioner has been ordered to be recorded by the learned Additional- Sessions Judge, Mailsi and it is the learned trial Court which has to decide as to which party was aggressor and which was aggressed upon.
6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the pre-arrest bail. The ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000/- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7: However, it is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.