Zaheer ud Din vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a cross-version case registered under Sections 337A(iii), 337L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of conflicting attributions in a cross-version scenario where the same head injury is attributed to multiple co-accused, and where the opposing party has already been granted bail. The court held that the case involves two competing versions and further inquiry regarding which party was the aggressor, creating serious doubt as to the petitioner's involvement. The court decided to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that in cases of counter-versions requiring further inquiry, and where one party has been allowed bail, the other party is similarly entitled to the same relief.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in a cross-version case when the same injury is attributed to multiple co-accused?
- Does a counter-version case where the aggressor is yet to be determined qualify as a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused when the opposing party in a cross-version case is already on bail?
- Section 337A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337L(2), 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
Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in cross version registered vide Rapt No.6 dated 13.08.2014, under Sections 337A(iii), 337L(2), 34 PPC, got recorded by Muhammad Anwar in case FIR No.191/14 dated 21.08.2014, registered at Police Station Kamar Mushani, District Mianwali.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage, therefore, without going deeper into the facts of the case, it has been noticed that the petitioner is the accused of cross version got recorded by Muhammad Anwar, wherein he has been attributed the role of causing injury on the head of Sher Afzal injured, but it is very astonishing to note here that the same injury has been attributed to Gul Nawaz co-accused of the petitioner. This fact alone has caused a serious doubt regarding involvement of the petitioner in this case. So the fact as to which of the accused caused injury on the head of Sher Afzal injured would be determined by the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage. After registration of cross version, this case has become the case of two-versions and which party is aggressor is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. All the accused of FIR are on bail. It is settled law that in case of counter version, if one party is allowed bail, then the other parties is also entitled to the same relief.
In this respect, reliance can be placed on PLD 2009 SC 58. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He was arrested in this case on 09.12.2014.
Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order, it is deemed appropriate to clarify that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.