MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Imran, who is accused of causing simple injuries to a prosecution witness. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail, given the allegations of suppressed injuries on the accused side and the cross-version investigation initiated by the police. The Court observed that three individuals from the petitioner's side, including the petitioner himself, sustained injuries during the occurrence, which the prosecution failed to disclose. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer had directed that a cross-version case be registered against the complainant party. The Court held that since the petitioner was not alleged to have caused harm to the deceased and considering the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party, the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party and the existence of a cross-version case are significant factors supporting the grant of bail under the category of further inquiry.
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the existence of a cross-version case initiated by the Investigating Officer a relevant factor in determining bail eligibility?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is not alleged to have caused the primary fatal injury in a case involving cross-versions?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as, petitioner is concerned, only simple injury on the person of Younis injured P.W. Is attributed to him, that including the petitioner two other co- accused were also injured in this case and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, that after the investigation, it had been ordered by the Investigating Officer that complainant party should also be challaned in this case and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that after the occurrence complainant party was so much worried and took the deceased in an injured condition to the General Hospital, Lahore, that in fact petitioner was not injured during the occurrence, that injuries on the person of the petitioner are self-suffered and the offence alleged against him falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, three persons from the side of the petitioner including the petitioner were injured and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. The injury attributed to the petitioner to the injured P.W. Namely, Younis is simple in nature S.-I. Present in Court submits that an order has been passed by the Investigating Officer that a cross-version should also be registered against the complainant party. As the petitioner has not touched the deceased and moreover from the petitioner side including the petitioner three persons were also injured and their injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.