Asghar vs The State and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 352/2022, registered at Police Station Kur, District Faisalabad, for offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version and the complainant's delay in lodging the FIR. The court observed that the four-day delay in filing the FIR, without explanation, suggested deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the court noted that the case involved two versions, with the petitioner claiming the complainant party were the aggressors, and that the complainant had suppressed the injuries sustained by the petitioner's side. Holding that the determination of the aggressor required further inquiry at trial, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without explanation and there exists a cross-version where the complainant suppresses injuries of the opposing party, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the case involves two conflicting versions of the incident?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in an FIR necessitate further inquiry into the prosecution's case?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J. Through this application the Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.352/2022 dated 28.11.2022 registered at Police Station Kur, District Faisalabad, for offences under sections 337-F(v)/337-L(2)/I48/149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 24.11.2022 at about 10:30 a.m. the Petitioner and his co- accused formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of its common object, attacked the complainant party. As a result, two persons were injured.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The Complainant lodged the FIR with a delay of four days for which he has not furnished any explanation. The said delay indicates consultation and deliberation on his pan.
5. This is a case of two versions. The Petitioner has lodged a cross-version claiming that the Complainant and his companions were the aggressors. The fact that in the FIR the Complainant has suppressed the injuries received by the other side shows that it does not contain the whole truth. It would be determined at the trial after recording evidence as to which party was the aggressor. Hence, further inquiry is required to determine the Petitioners' guilt. Reliance is placed on Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCMR 1845) and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2046).
6. In view of the foregoing, this application is accepted. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the Petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.