RAJIB vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving offences punishable under sections 334, 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a mutual fight between the parties following cattle trespass. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the presence of counter-cases and cross-injuries, and where it remained undetermined which party was the aggressor. The court held that the circumstances of the case, including cross-cases, injuries sustained by the applicant, use of the blunt side of the hatchet, and the grant of bail to co-accused, made out a case of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to bail. The key principle laid down is that where cross-cases exist and it is debatable at trial as to which party was the aggressor, a case for further inquiry is made out warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether bail should be granted in cross-cases when it is yet to be determined at trial as to which party was the aggressor?
- Does the existence of injuries on the person of the accused in a counter-case make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicant has prayed for bail in a case punishable for offences punishable under sections 334, 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii), P.P.C. There are counter-cases between the parties viz. Crime No,6 of 2001, the instant case and the Crime No,7 of 2001 of the same police station. It appears that there was a fight between the parties following cattle trespass. The number of injured persons in the instant case is of course larger but the complainant in the cross case namely the present applicant Rajib has sustained injuries. Co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. Although an injury caused by hatchet has been ascribed to the present applicant, but it seems, the blunt side of the hatchet has been used. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the above it can only be determined at the trial as to which party was aggressor. Mr. Tunio learned Asstt. A.-G.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances did not oppose the bail.
3. ' The above-narrated circumstances make out a case of further inquiry in favour of the applicant and as such he is entitled to bail. The applicant may be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.