Haji NOOR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No. 453 of 2001 registered under sections 337-A(ii), (iii), (v), 337-F(i), (v), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal. The core legal question before the court was whether the existence of a cross-version and the entirety of circumstances warranted further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since a cross-version of the incident existed in the shape of a private complaint wherein the complainant party had also been summoned by a Magistrate, the question of who was the aggressor and who was the aggressed upon required further inquiry at trial. The petition was accordingly accepted, and the petitioners were admitted to bail, establishing that the presence of a bonafide cross-version making it debatable as to which party was the aggressor brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2).
- Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case make the guilt of the accused a matter of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether delay in lodging the F.I.R. combined with a cross-complaint entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Haji Noor Ahmad and Mushtaq, the petitioners have sought for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,453 of 2001 under sections 337-A(ii) (iii)(v)/337-F(i)(v)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 23-12-2001 at about 10-00 a.m. They alongwith their co-accused while armed variously in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them had caused injuries to the complainant Falk Sher, Nazir Ahmad, Punnu, Riaz and Hanif.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the complainant party had cut the Watt of the accused.
4. The bail has been sought by them on the ground that they have been falsely roped in; that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is cross-version from their side against the complainant party and in the same they (complainant party) have been summoned vide the order dated 20-7-2002 recorded by Sh. Muhammad Kashif, learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal and so it is yet to be seen that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon; that they are behind the bars for the last about 9 months without any progress towards their trial; and that they are previous non-convicts.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they alongwith co-accused while armed vicariously had attacked the complainant party and have injured their five persons.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. There is cross-version of the alleged incident in the shape of private complaint brought by co- accused Muhammad Yar against the complainant Falk Sher and others under sections 365/342/337-A(i)/ 337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/382/148/149, P.P.C. In respect of the same occurrence, as mentioned in the instant -F.I.R. And in the same they (complainant party) have been summoned on 20-7-2002 by the aforesaid learned Magistrate considering that prima facie offence under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/ 337-L(ii)/382/148/149, P.P.C. Has been made out against them.
Therefore, this is yet to be seen that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon. The same can be done at the trial. Their case thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Requiring further inquiry into their guilt. They are stated to be behind the bars for the last about nine months and previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, is, therefore, accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.