MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs TARIQ MAHMOOD and another
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 337, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail in a case involving a cross-version incident where competing police investigations offered differing accounts regarding which party was the aggressor and who caused the fatal injury. The Supreme Court held that although the High Court granted bail solely on the basis of a cross-version without discussing the merits, an independent examination of the record and investigation reports showed that it was otherwise a fit case for the grant of bail. The petitions were consequently dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that bail may be sustained on merits upon examination of the record in cross-version cases even if the lower court's order lacks detailed discussion.
- Whether bail granted on the basis of a cross-version can be sustained when the appellate court examines the record and finds the case fit on merits?
- Can leave to appeal be refused against an order granting bail where competing police investigations render the question of who caused the fatal injury indeterminate at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos.81-L of 1998 and 82-L of 1998 as questions of law and facts are common in both of them.
2. Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 16-1-1998 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.980-B and 1040-B of 1997, through which the respondents have been granted bail in case F.I.R. No,38 of 1997 registered under sections 302, 324, 337 and 34, P.P.C. And case F.I.R. No,38 of 1997, registered under section 302/324/34, P.P.C., respectively.
3. F.I.R. No,38 of 1997 was lodged by Ghulam Murtaza in which he nominated Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Arshad and Akhtar Ali, deceased as accused persons. Akhtar Ali who suffered firearm injuries died in the Hospital and before death, made a dying declaration on the basis of which investigation was held and Tariq Mehmood and Ghulam Murtaza from the complainant side were also challaned.
4. The main objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order was that the same has been passed merely on the reason that there was cross-version and record was not examined in order to decide as to which of the party was aggressor and suffered more in the incident.
5. No doubt, learned Judge has not discussed the merits of the case. This Court passed order for the summoning of the Investigating Officer who is present in the Court today. We have examine the record and find that Haroon D.S.P., who originally investigated the case categorically recorded an opinion that it was the petitioner's party who opened fire first at the complainant party and Ghulam Murtaza sustained injury at his abdomen. He found that Muhammad Anwar of the petitioner side sustained injury by the firearm of Tariq Mehmood.
6. Another police officer who subsequently investigated the case and gave his opinion. According to him, it was the petitioner's party who opened the fire at the complainant party and thereafter, there was an exchange of firing. According to his opinion, it could not be determined at that stage as to with whose fire Akhtar Ali died.
7. Both the parties have been sent up for trial. After considering the dying declaration from both sides and the record of investigation, we are not inclined to cancel the bail granted to the respondents though no reason other than the reasons of cross-version has been given as we find after examining the record, that on merits, it was otherwise a fit case for grant of bail. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal refused.