MUHAMMAD TARIQ and 5 others vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by six petitioners in relation to FIR No. 335/2018, registered at Police Station Karor, District Layyah, for offences including causing hurt and rioting. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant party. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version case and discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Court observed that the case involved two conflicting versions of the incident, with injuries sustained by both sides, and that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the prosecution's ocular account. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that in cases of counter-versions arising from the same incident, the determination of the truthful version is a matter for the trial court to decide after recording and appraising evidence, thereby justifying the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry.
- Does the existence of a cross-version case entitle an accused to the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when medical evidence does not fully support the ocular account?
- Should the determination of which version is correct in a cross-case be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 335/2018 dated 10.7.2018 registered at Police Station Karor , District Layyah, for offences under Sections 337-A(i)/337- A(ii)/337-L( 2 )/337-F(v)/337- F(vi)/440/148/149, PPC.
2. Briefly , the prosecution case is that on 9.7.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. the Petition ers and their co-accused while armed with different weapons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object assaulted the complainant party and caused them injuries.
3. Arguments heard. Record persued.
4. The specific allegation against Petitioner No, 1 (Muhammad Tariq) is that he gave sota blow to Mazhar Abbas on his left elbow and Qaiser Abbas on his left hand while Petitioner No, 2 (Allah Bakhsh) gave a sota blow to Ashiq Hussain on his nose. No role has been ascribed to Petitioner No, 3 (Fayyaz Hussa in alias Lali). On the other hand, Petitioner No, 4 (Ejaz Ahmad) is accused of having whacked Mazhar Abbas on his left thumb and Petitioner No, 5 (Fida Hussain) of having given hatchet blows to Mazhar Abbas and Ashiq Hussain on their heads. Petitioner No, 6 (Tanveer Hussain) is assigned the orle of striking Mazhar Abbas and Qaiser Abbas on their back and right arms respectively with a sota. A wade through the police file reveals that the medical evidence does not fully support the ocular account. Even otherwise, this is a case of two versions. Five persons from the Complainant's side were also injured in the occurrence. Mst. Akhtar Bibi wife of Petitioner No, 2 lodged cross-ver sion in this respect claiming that the other side was the aggressor . The question as to which version is correct would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. This makes the case of the petitioners one of further inquiry . Possibiliy of false implication cannot be ruled out. In "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar -ul-Haq and 3 others " (1996 SCMR 1845 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held: "In case of counter-version arising from the same incident, one given by Complainant in FIR and the other given by the opposite-party case-law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally , bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the Trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard."
The above view was reiterated in "Ghulam Abbas u. the State and others" ( 2016 SCMR 2048 ).
5. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.