YOUNUS Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail petition filed before the Lahore High Court in a criminal case where the petitioner sought post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that only a simple injury is attributed to him, he did not touch the deceased, and injuries sustained by the petitioner and co-accused were allegedly suppressed by the prosecution alongside the ordering of a cross-version. The Court held that the petition should be accepted, granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where multiple persons from the accused side sustain injuries that are suppressed by the prosecution, and the specific role attributed involves only a simple injury without touching the deceased, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when injuries sustained by the accused party are suppressed by the prosecution?
- Does a case fall under further inquiry for bail purposes when the accused is only attributed a simple injury and did not touch the deceased?
- Whether the suppression of injuries and ordering of a cross-version justify granting bail to an accused?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as petitioner is concerned, only simple injury on the person of Younus injured P.W. is attributed to him, that including the petitioner two other co‑accused were also injured in this case and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, that after the investigation, it had been ordered by the Investigating Officer that complainant party should also be challaned in this case and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that after the occurrence complainant party was so much worried and took the deceased in an injured condition to the General Hospital, Lahore, that in fact petitioner was not injured during the occurrence, that injuries on the person of the petitioner are self‑suffered and the offence alleged against him falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, three persons from the side of the petitioner including tile petitioner were injured and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. The injury attributed to the petitioner to the injured P., "namely Younus is simple in nature. S.‑I. present in Court submits that an order has been passed by the Investigating Officer that a cross‑version should also be registered against the complainant party. As the petitioner has not touched the deceased and moreover from the petitioner side including the petitioner three persons were also injured and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./Y‑31/L Bail granted.