Saqib and others vs The State and others
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing them post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 635 registered under sections 324, 337-D, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in the presence of suppressed injuries on the accused side and a registered cross version. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where injuries sustained by the accused party were not disclosed in the FIR and a cross version was recorded with challans submitted in both cases, the determination of the aggressor was a matter for the trial court after recording evidence. Consequently, the case against the petitioners fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail to the appellants.
- Whether bail should be granted when injuries sustained by the accused party are not disclosed in the initial FIR?
- Does the existence of a cross version and submission of challans in both cases make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the determination of the aggressor a question to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal again st the order dated 18.10.2019, whereby bail was refused to them by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case FIR No.635 dated 08.07.2019, offences under sections 324, 337-D, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 34, P .P.C., registered at Police Station AMJS, Peshawar .
2. The allegation against the petitioners, as per contedts of FIR, is that they while armed with Churris caused injuries on the person of the complainant and his brother Fida.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record with their assistance.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been noted by us and as confirmed by the learned State counsel under instructions of the police officer present with record that during the occurrence two persons from petitioner side namely Saqib and Majaz, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 also sustained injuries but those injuries have not been disclosed in the FIR. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State also confirms that a cross version in this regard was also recorded and Challan in both cases i.e. FIR and cross version has been submitted. In these circumstances, it is for the trial court to determine as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon, of course, after recording evidence of the parties. As for now, case against the petitioners calls for further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed.
Appellants Saqib, Maarifat and Majaz are allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
Cited by 9 cases
- Jamal Shah vs Mst. Qais Begum and another 2025 PHC 264
- Qaim vs The State 2025 YLR 785
- Ghulam Nabi vs The State 2024 PCRLJ 1778
- Abrar Ahmed Siddiqi vs The State 2022 PCRLJ 995
- Muhammad Imran vs The State, etc 2022 IHC 96
- Faiz Muhammad & another vs The State 2021 SHC 582
- Allah Wadhaya vs The State etc 2021 LHC 824
- AQEEL Versus State 2021 PCrLJN 47
- ASIMULLAH Versus State 2022 YLRN 74