AMAN ULLAH Versus State
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a cross-version case where a single pellet injury on a non-vital part of the body is attributed to him and co-accused have already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that since it is a cross-version case and co-accused have been granted bail, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly considering the statutory delay in the trial and the non-vital seat of the injury. The court laid down the principle that the determination of the aggressor party in a cross-version case is to be settled after recording evidence at trial, and delayed trial coupled with bail granted to co-accused justifies granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted in a cross-version case where co-accused have already been admitted to bail?
- Does an injury attributed to a non-vital part of the body without repetition negate prima facie intention to kill under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the question of which party was the aggressor in a cross-version case be determined at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J .--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1171 of 2007 dated 15-10-2007 under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the co-accused caused injury to Mushtaq Ahmed injured P.W. on his left thigh and to Muhammad Abid on his right foot with gun.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a false case has been registered against the petitioner; actually the complainant party was aggressor and in this regard a cross-version case of the petitioner was registered against the complainant party stating therein that the complainant along with other had drunk and they tried to crush them under the car and came to the house of the petitioner fully armed; that the said cross-version of the petitioner had initially been discharged in the first investigation but thereafter on change of investigation the cross version of the petitioner had been found correct and case under sections 452, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. has been got registered against the complainant party. It is further stated that the petitioner had been arrested on 23-10-2007 and since he is behind the bars for the last about one year and six months; that the Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court but there is no progress in the trial. It is further stated that pre-arrest bail of the Mohsin, Hassan and Ghulam Mustafa co-accused of the petitioner had already been confirmed. Further stated that all the accused of the cross-version case of the petitioner had also been allowed pre-arrest bail; that there is only a single pellet injury has been attributed to the petitioner and that also on the non-vital part of the body of the injured person. It is further stated that the plea of self defence has also been raised by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on 2009 SCMR 324, 2009 PCr.LJ 545, 2009 MLD 348 and 2008 MLD 1225.
4. Bail petition has been opposed by the learned Assistant Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner nominated in the F.I.R.; that the co-accused Mohsin and Hassan whose pre-arrest bail have been confirmed, they were attributed aerial firing; that during the investigation the petitioner has been found guilty. It is further contended that the injuries in the cross version case of the petitioner are simple in nature; that the plea of self-defence cannot be taken at the bail stage.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly it is a cross-version case. Both the cases of the petitioner and that of complainant are pending and in the cross-version case of the petitioner, all the accused have been allowed pre-arrest bail as well as three co-accused in the instant case have already been granted bail; therefore, case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. The question as to which party was an aggressor and which party was aggressed upon it would be decided after recording evidence by the learned trial Court. Reliance is placed on the cases of Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1611, Allah Ditta and 2 others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 216, and Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1845. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrested on 23-10-2007 and there is no progress in the trial of the case. The injury caused by the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the injured. Prima facie the intention to kill does not appear to be available keeping in view the seat of injury, which is on the non-vital part of the body, and non-repetition.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-192/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- ASGHAR ALI Alias BUTT vs THE STATE And Another 2011 YLR 37