MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of a bail application filed by Muhammad Ali, who is accused in a cross-version case arising from an incident where the deceased Safdar Iqbal sustained fatal injuries. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was allegedly empty-handed, no specific weapon or injury was attributed to him, and the matter involves a cross-version requiring determination of the aggressor at trial. The Lahore High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the petitioner had been incarcerated since March 2001 and the challan had already been submitted. The court laid down the principle that where a cross-version exists and the specific role or weapon attribution regarding an accused remains doubtful, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail pending trial.
- Whether an accused in a cross-version case is entitled to bail when no specific weapon or injury is attributed to him?
- Does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the question of which party was the aggressor is yet to be determined at trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF. J.- Petitioner is accused of cross version recorded on the statement of Muhammad Sarfraz on 11.2.2001. According to cross version, Shaukat Ali, Zaheer Ahmad, Nadeem Muhammad Ali, Ilyas and Arif criminally trespassed into the factory and started beating Safdar Iqbal and from there took him to his house by dragging. The complainant along with others also chased them where Ilyas gave a blow with broken bottle into belly of Safdar while Snaukat started giving beating with chain of the motor-cycle. Safdar fell down on the ground and in that condition apart from Nadeem Muhammad Ali and Arif also gave blows to Safdar. The injured was then taken to the hospital where he later succumbed to his injuries. Earlier to that FIR No. 82 under Section 324, PPC was registered on the statement of Shaukat Ali, father of the present petitioner on 10.2.2001 with P.S. Mughalpura, Lahore.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was empty handed, no specific injury is attributed to him qua the deceased, only allegation against him is that he gave beating to the deceased but with which weapon, the complaint is silent, it being a case of cross version the matter is one of further inquiry and it will be determined at the trial as to which party was the aggressor.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly and the facts narrated in the FIR No. 82, dated 10.2.2001 are totally incorrect, in fact the deceased was taken away to his house and there he was given beating.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is accused of cross version. His father is complainant of FIR No. 82 of 2001 registered against the complainant party of cross version, lt will be determined at the trial as to which party was the aggressor. Though allegedly the petitioner caused injuries on the person of the deceased but with which weapon, the answer is in the negative. Challan has been submitted in Court. Petitioner is behind the bar since 8.3.2001.- At the present, case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of sub-section (2) to Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. One lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.