MUNIR AHMED- vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was instituted by Munir Ahmed seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 200/2016 registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shaker Fareed, District Bahawalnagar. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in a matter involving cross-versions where both parties sustained injuries and the identity of the aggressor remained open to debate at the pre-trial stage. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that because it was a case of cross-versions with injuries sustained by the petitioner—including a fracture supported by a Medical Board report—it was difficult to determine who the aggressor was at this tentative stage, and mala fide involvement could not be ruled out. Additionally, the court noted that no recovery was to be made from the petitioner, rendering further incarceration unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases presenting genuine cross-versions and rival injuries where the primary aggressor is indeterminable at the motion stage, pre-arrest bail is appropriately granted.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a case of cross-versions where both parties have sustained injuries?
- Does the existence of a rival medical report creating doubt as to the identity of the aggressor warrant confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail justified when no recovery is to be effected from the accused?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner namely Munir Ahmed seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 200/2016 dated 30.07.2016, offences under Sections 337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/34, PPC, registered at Police Station Shaker Fareed, District Bahawalnagar on the complaint of Muhammad Iqbal (complainant).
2. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, on 23.07.2016, at about 5.45 p.m, a quarrel took place between the petitioner and the complainant party, whereupon the petitioner inflicted a brick blow on the head of Muhammad Iqbal (complainant), whereas his co-accused namely Amir Shafizad, inflicted a brick blow, which landed above the right ear of the complainant and his co-accused namely Mst. Baigan gave fists and slap blows to the complainant.
2. 3.Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. 4.It is a case of two versions. It is claim of the petitioner that infact he was attacked by the complainant party of this case. The medico legal report of the petitioner is also available on the record, according to which the petitioner sustained two injuries and as per his x-ray report, the bone of left arm of the petitioner was found to be t actured and the same was declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashimah to be punishable under Section 337-F(v), PPC. Although the initial Medical Officer has mentioned in the relevant column of the medico legal report of the petitioner that possibility of accidental injury of the petitioner cannot be ruled out but the said report was challenged before the Medical Board and according to the final report, furnished by the Medical Board, the abovementioned findings of the initial Medical Officer regarding possibility of receiving of injury by the petitioner during an accident were set aside and it was noted that the aforementioned findings were given by the initial Medical Officer without any solid reason/evidence. Although the duration of the injury was given by the initial Medical Officer to be within four to six days but the Medical Board has opined as under: "According to FIR No. 20012016 lodged by opposite party Mr. Muhammad Muneer was main accused and he seriously injured to opposite which is not possible for a person who have a long bone fracture of forearm. The police investigate this matter on circumstantial evidence." Admittedly the abovementioned findings of the Medical Board regarding the story narrated in the instant FIR have not been challenged any further by the complainant. As it is a case of cross- versions and the petitioner himself sustained injuries during the occurrence, therefore, it is difficult to determine at this stage that as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon, hence a case for grant if pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out in this case. Reference in this context may be made to the cases reported as "Hamza Ali Hamza and others vs. The State" (2010 SCM R 1219) & "Syed Darbar Ali Shah and others vs. The State" (2015 SCM R 879). Moreover, as per contents of the FIR, the petitioner pelted/threw brick bat upon the complainant and brick bat, if any, must be available at the place of occurrence. Nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.
4. Reference in this context may be made to the case of "Khalid Mehmood and others vs. The State and others" (2011 SCM R 1719). Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case, due to the cross version, cannot be ruled out at this stage.
5. 5.Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, the instant petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred Thousand only) with one surer in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court 6.It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial Court.