RIAZ vs MALIK DAD and another
This post-arrest bail application was filed by petitioner Riaz under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fired a pistol at complainant Malik Dad following a verbal dispute, injuring his belly, which was supported by medical evidence and eyewitness testimonies. The petitioner contended that he sustained multiple injuries in the same occurrence, resulting in a cross-FIR under Section 337-A(ii)/34 PPC against the complainant party who had already been granted bail, thus claiming entitlement to bail under the rule of counter-versions. The Peshawar High Court held that while bail may be extended to the opposite party in counter-version cases, the rule applies exclusively to genuine counter-versions. The mere registration of a cross-case does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if there is sufficient material connecting them to the crime. Finding no merit or genuineness in the petitioner's plea, the Court dismissed the bail application.
- Does the mere registration of a cross-case automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the rule of counter-versions?
- Whether the rule of parity in bail applies to counter-version cases without demonstrating an element of genuineness in the cross-version?
- Can bail be refused under Section 497 Cr.P.C. where the accused is directly named in a promptly lodged FIR supported by medical and ocular evidence despite a cross-FIR?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' This is an application by Riaz petitioner under section 497, Cr.P.C. For grant of bail, who stands arrested in case F.I.R. No,506, dated 8-12-2000 registered under section 324, P.P.C. At the behest of complainant Malik Dad.
2. Malik Dad complainant was brought to Rural Health Centre Havelian in injured condition on 8-12- 2000 at 16-20 hours wherein he made a report to the effect that at 15-30 hours he was present near his house in Deh Kaseel when in the meanwhile his co-villager Riaz petitioner appeared there and started abusing him. Muhammad Younas and Zakir-ur-Rehman sons of Zar Dad on hearing the noise came to the spot and prevented the petitioner from abusing the complainant. The petitioner took out a pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and fired at the complainant. The complainant was hit on his belly and fell down on the ground. The petitioner decamped from the spot.
3. The petitioner applied for bail but his application was rejected by Judicial Magistrate, Abbottabad vide order, dated 12-1-2001.
4. The petitioner approached the Court of Session Abbottabad but without any success as his bail application was also rejected through order, dated 21-2-2001.
5. The petitioner having remained unsuccessful to obtain the relief of bail has moved this Court with the similar prayer and in support of the bail application it is submitted by Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli, Advocate for the petitioner that in fact, the petitioner was attacked by complainant Malak Dad when he was making complaint to Younas son of Zardad about misbehaviour of his sons with the daughters of the petitioner. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries during the occurrence, whereupon the matter was reported to the police in R.H.C. Havelian. The petitioner was medically examined and on the basis of medical report case F.I.R. No,507, dated 8-12-2000 under section 337- A(ii)/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Havelian against the complainant and his co- accused. The complainant and his co-accused have already been admitted to bail vide order, dated 9-2-2001 but the concession of bail has been declined to the petitioner without any justifiable reason. The learned counsel added that there are two versions of the same occurrence.
The petitioner has been charged for firing at the complainant whereas in fact the fire was made by Banaras son of Mian Dad, one of the co-accused with complainant on account of which the complainant sustained injury on his belly. To substantiate the pleas reliance has been placed on Muhammad Nazir v. The State 2000 M LD 1269 Lahore and Abdul Salam v. The State 1980 SCM R 142.
In response to the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended by Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan, Advocate for the complainant that there is sufficient material on file to connect the petitioner with the guilt and mere filing of cross-case constitutes no good ground for release of an accused-person on bail if prima facie he is associated with the guilt. Reliance has been placed on Shahid Hayat and 2 others v. The State PLD 1999 Kar. 162, Riaz Shah v. Mubarak Shah and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1167 Peshawar and Nasir Muhammad Wassan and another v. The State 1992 SCM R 501.
6. Be that as it may, without adverting to the merits of the case at this stage I find that the petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For having fired at his co-villager Malik Dad (34/35) with his pistol on account of which Malik Dad was hit and fell on the ground. The medical evidence and the statements of P.Ws. Younas and Zakirur Rehman fully support the prosecution version.
7. It needs no reiteration that in cases of counter-version the rule followed is that if one party is granted bail the other too is entitled to bail, but that rule would be applicable in cases of genuine counter-version. In the instant case I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the complainant that mere filing of cross-case against each other cannot be a ground for grant of bail as held in 1992 SCM R 501 and 1995 SCM R 860, unless an element of genuineness is there.The case- law produced on behalf of the petitioner proceeds on different footings and has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Courts below have properly exercised discretion in disallowing bail to the petitioner and I see no good reason to interfere with the same.
8. Resultantly, the bail application fails which is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus THE STATE 2003 MLD 1458
- FAZAL NABI and anothers vs SAHIBZADA and anothers 2002 P Cr. L J 1483