MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns two consolidated petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Anwar Khan and Javed, arising from cross-versions of an incident registered under FIR No. 267/19. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving cross-versions where the identity of the initial aggressor remained disputed and required trial determination. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained ten-day delay, and the medical examination of the injured party also suffered from an unexplained two-day delay. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer present in court indicated that the complainant side of the FIR was the aggressor. Relying on the principle that in cases of cross-versions, the determination of the aggressor is a matter for the trial court, the High Court held that further incarceration of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail for both petitioners, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, emphasizing that the determination of culpability in cross-version cases is reserved for the trial stage.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in cases involving cross-versions where the identity of the aggressor is disputed?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a medical examination impact the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the determination of the initial aggressor in a cross-version case a matter to be decided at the bail stage or the trial stage?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this single order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 37031-B of 2019 (Muhammad Anwar Khan vs. The State etc.) and Crl. Misc. No. 39091-B of 2019, and through Crl. Misc. No. 37031-B of 2019, Muhammad Anwar Khan petitioner (Javed v. The State etc.) seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 267/19, dated 10.5.2019, under Sections 337-F(vi)/147/149, PPC, Police Station Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur and through Crl. Misc.
No. 39091-B of 2019, Javed petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in cross version lodged under Sections 337-A(ii)/337- L(ii)/148/149, PPC in the aforementioned FIR as both the petitions arise out of one F.I.R.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Admittedly, it is a case of two versions, which runs parallel to each other. The petitioner-Muhammad Anwar Khan (in Crl. Misc. No. 37031-B of 2019) is named in the FIR, with specific role of causing injury with hatchet on the little finger of left hand. The injury attributed to the petitioner-Muhammad Anwar Khan is available in the MLC, The occurrence took place on 30.4.2019, whereas the incident was reported to the police on 10.5.2019 with unexplained delay of ten days. Similarly, the medical examination of injured-PW Mst. Sakina was conducted on 2.5.2019 with delay of 2 days, which is not plausibly explained by the prosecution. Whereas, Javed-the petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. 39091-B of 2019) is named in the cross-version of the above said FIR with specific role for causing injury with iron rod on the right side of forehead of Muhammad Anwar Khan- injured PW-complainant of the cross-version. The injury attributed to the petitioner-Javed (in Crl. Misc. No. 39091-B of 2019) is available in the MLC. The petitioner-Javed (in Crl. Misc. No. 39091-B of 2019) raised the plea that the complainant side of the FIR attacked upon them and in this regard, he lodged cross-version. The complainant of FIR claimed that they are not aggressor. However, Investigating Officer present in the Court stated that the complainant side of the FIR is aggressor. The prosecution case is of two versions, one recorded by the complainant of the FIR and other of cross-version. However, it is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court that who is aggressor and who aggressed upon. Reliance in this regard can be placed to the case of "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar -ul-Haq and 3 others" (1996 SCMR 1845 ). In view of the above facts, sending the petitioners behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
4. For the reasons supra, both the above-mentioned petitions are accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner namely Muhammad Anwar Khan (Crl. Misc. No. 37031-B of 2019) and Javed- petitioner of cross-version (Crl. Misc. No. 39091-B of 2019) 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.