WAZEER vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving counter-First Information Reports and cross-versions of an incident originating from a dispute at a hotel. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant, who was alleged to have been empty-handed, played a role requiring further inquiry into his vicarious liability, and whether pre-arrest bail was justified given the existence of counter-versions and lack of support from medical evidence for the overt acts attributed. The court decided to confirm the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant, with the Assistant Advocate-General stating no objection. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions exist, the presence of the accused, the specific part played, and questions of vicarious liability requiring further inquiry can constitute grounds for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when counter-versions of the incident are registered by both parties?
- Does the absence of supporting medical evidence for attributed overt acts warrant further inquiry into an accused person's liability for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an accused attributed only with kicks and fists and alleged to be empty-handed is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Complainant Wahid Bux lodged F.I.R. On 22-4-2000 at 2-30 p.m. With Police Station Lakhi Gate, under sections 302, 324, 114 and 34, P.P.C. Being Crime No,31 of 2000.
2. ' The brief facts as narrated by complainant are that on the day of incident he alongwith his brothers Muhammad Sharif, Shah Muhammad and Tharo were sitting in a hotel. For having tea. The complainant kept his arm on the chair and took a rest of back side of it which was objected to by Haji Bashan Buriro who was sitting at counter of the hotel. They exchanged harsh words and it is stated that when the complainant came out from the hotel at 2-00 p.m., he was attacked by Haji Bashan alias Bashir Ahmed, Rasheed Ahmed, Wazir and Nazir all sons of Sohrab. It is asserted in the F.I.R. That Haji Bashan alias Bashir and Rashid Ahmed were armed with knives. The aforesaid accused caused knife blows to Muhammad Sharif on the instigation of Wazir Buriro. The injured fell down on the ground after sustaining injuries. Accused Rasheed Ahmed caused knife blows to the complainant whereas accused Wazir and Nazeer alleged to have caused kicks and fists slows to complainant. Injured Muhammad Sharif was removed to hospital and he expired on reaching at hospital.
3. ' The counter-F.I.R. Was also registered at same police station by Budhal on the same day at 15-05 hours being Crime No,32 of 2000, wherein it is stated that the complainant party had misbehaved with the boy and the complainant who was sitting at counter asked both the parties to leave the hotel. It is stated that at about 2-00 p.m. Accused Wat'd Bux, Ali Hyder, Shah Muhammad and Babu armed with hatchet and Lathies came there. On the instigation of Shah Muhammad, accused Wahid Bux caused hatchet blow to Haji Bashan alias Bashir on his head. The complainant and others intervened and thereafter, accused made their escape good.
4. ' After registration of counter-first information reports, the police took up investigation of the cases.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are counter-versions by the parties. The presence of applicant Wazir is not even mentioned in the F.I.R. Lodged by the accused party. It is submitted that accused Haji Bashan alias Bashir Ahmed received a serious head injury including other wounds but the said fact is not disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant. It is asserted that the present applicant/accused was empty-handed and no overt act has been attributed to him. He is said to have caused kicks and fists blows to complainant which version does not get support from medical evidence. It is stated that aggression of the parties and the part played by the present applicant including his presence are the questions which still need consideration. It is submitted that present applicant is a hotel-keeper and he alongwith his three brothers has been falsely implicated in the case. It is argued that he was not even present at the scene of offence nor had taken part in the scuffle. His case and alleged vicarious liability yet needs further enquiry. It is submitted that his arrest and implication in the F.I.R. Is due `a mala fide intentions in order to cause humiliation to him.
6. ' Mr. Ali Azher Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances has stated his no objection to the confirmation of bail granted earlier to applicant In view of the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and no objection stated by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant on 15-5-2000 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
7. Pre-arrest .