Dr. YOUNAS Versus State
This matter concerns two bail petitions filed by Dr. Younas and Dr. Samin, arising from FIR No. 529/2015, registered under sections 324/337-F(ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of causing injuries during an incident at a polling station. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version FIR (FIR No. 584/2015) registered by one of the petitioners against the complainants for the same incident. The Court held that while the two incidents could not strictly be classified as cross-cases due to slight variations in time, the existence of two conflicting versions of the same occurrence, where both parties sustained injuries, rendered the petitioners' culpability a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that when two versions of the same incident exist, determining the veracity of either version is a matter for trial, thereby establishing that such ambiguity creates a case for further inquiry sufficient to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the existence of a cross-version FIR regarding the same incident entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is the determination of the veracity of conflicting versions of an incident a matter for trial or for the bail stage?
- Does the presence of two conflicting FIRs regarding the same occurrence constitute a case of further inquiry under the law of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.--- My this common judgment shall govern the instant bail petition filed by petitioner Dr. Younas and connected bail petition No.1122-P/2015, filed by petitioner Dr. Samin, as both are the outcome of one and the same FIR No.529 dated 30.05.2015, registered under sections 324/337-F(ii)/34, P.P.C., in Police Station Mathra, Peshawar.
2. On 30.05.2015 at 17.00 hours, Kifayat Ullah, in injured condition in Trauma room LRH, Peshawar, reported to local police that on the fateful day he alongwith his brother Dr. Muhammad Tariq, Khan Shafiq ur Rehman, Babar Shaheen and Zeeshan Hamid Tariq, was present in Tirai Payan Primary School/Polling Station, when in the meantime, at 16.00 hours, petitioners along with absconding co-accused Jamshed Khan, duly armed with firearms and sharp objects, came there and inflicted blows on the persons of Babar Shaheen, Zeshan, Hamid Tariq and Dr. Muhammad Tariq as a result they sustained injuries; that they also opened fire at them with the intention to do them away, resultantly, he and Shafiq ur Rehman got hit and injured. Previous blood feud has been alleged as motive behind the incident. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by all the injured PWs.
3. Arguments heard and record perused. Record of case FIR No.584 dated 30.05.2015 registered under sections 324/337-F(iv)/ 337-A(ii)/337-L(1)/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Mathra Peshawar, received.
4. No doubt, in this untoward incident six persons have sustained injuries, out of whom, the injuries of two have been declared as grievous, but at the same time I am confronted with FIR No.584 of the same date i.e. 31.05.2015 registered in the same Police Station, wherein complainant Muhammad Samin, the petitioner/accused in the instant case, has nominated all the injured of the instant case as accused for attempting at their lives and causing them injuries. Though, site plan has not been prepared in case FIR No.584, but as evident from the FIR, place of occurrence of both the incident is the same. Similarly, the date of occurrence and the parties of the two FIRs are also same. However, due to slight variation in time of incident of the two FIRs, the cases cannot be termed as cross-cases as per the principle of cross cases set out by the Apex Court in Plethora of judgments. However, at the moment, FIR No.584 of the even date and of the same Police Station cannot be thrown away from consideration. Keeping in juxtaposition both the FIRs, I am confronted with two versions about the same incident wherein damage in the shape of causing injuries has been caused to both the parties. At the moment it is yet to be determined during trial after recording evidence as to which of the two versions is correct, which makes the case of the petitioners arguable for the purpose of bail, hence, they are entitled to concession of bail.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Accused/petitioners are admitted to bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, concerned. The sureties must be local reliable and men of means.
SL/361/P Bail allowed.