Rasheed Ahmad and others vs The State and others
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.1691 of 2020 registered under Sections 440, 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving two competing versions of the incident, where the cross-version brought by the accused was supported by a Medico-Legal Certificate but remained uninvestigated by the police. The court held that the presence of two conflicting versions, neither of which had been fully investigated despite supporting medical evidence, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the false implication of the petitioners plausible. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down the principle that an uninvestigated cross-version supported by medical evidence can constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a case involves two conflicting versions and the version presented by the accused is supported by a Medico-Legal Certificate but has not been investigated?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to probe the accused's version of events make the case one of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Can false implication of the accused be inferred at the pre-arrest bail stage when competing versions exist between the parties?
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
AALIA NEELUM, J.----The petitioners-Rasheed Ahmad, Waqas Ahmad and Aftab Ahmad seek pre arrest bail in case FIR No.1691-2020 dated 10.10.2020, under Sections 440, 148 and 149, P.P.C., subsequently added offence under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 324, P .P.C., registered at Police Station, Ghalib Market, Lahore.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioners Nos.1 and 3 are name d in the FIR with collective and joint role for causing murderous assault upon the complainant and his brother namely Hafiz Maeem with sharp edge weapon. Whereas the name of the petitioner No.2-W aqas Ahmad had surfaced on the record through supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 22.10.2020, in which he was assigned a specific role for causing injury on hand of brother of the complainant namely Hafiz Naeem with a bite. Admittedly , the petitioner No.2 is son of the petitioner No.1 and brother of the petitioner No.3 and non identity of the petitioner No.2 at the spot by the complainant and prosecution witnesses is not made out. As the petitioner No.2 also works with the petitioner No.1 in the shop located in front of the shop of complainant. Even otherwise, the petitioner No.1 moved an application for registration of case on 10.10.2020 whereupon rapt No.08 dated 11.10.2020 was incorporated and during investigation, through case diary No.09 dated 25.10.2020, the Investigating Officer has also brought on the record the version of the petitioner No.1, revealing that Aftab Ahmad, petitioner No.3 has also received injuries during the alleged occurrence and till date, the investigating of ficer has not investigated the version brought on the record by the petitioner No.1.
4. Admittedly , it is a case of two versions, one brought by the complainant on the record through FIR and the second was brought on the record by the petitioners through their defence, which was not investigated by the investigating officer. However , the same is supported by the Medico Legal Certificate. So, it is to be determined by the learned trial court that which version is correct one. All above facts, make case of the petitioners one of further inquiry . False implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. The petitioners have successfully made out a case for pre-arrest bail and at this stage, sending the petitioners behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. For the reasons supra, instant petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby 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.