MUHAMMAD SHAFI And 2 Others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three accused persons, Muhammad Shafi, Ghulam Rasool, and Muhammad Iqbal, in connection with an F.I.R. registered under Section 337-A(ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version, the absence of specific injury attributions to the petitioners, and a pre-existing land dispute. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that because a cross-version had been registered against the complainant party and the petitioners were not attributed any specific injuries, the case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The key principle laid down is that where a cross-version exists and the role of the accused is limited to mere presence without specific injury attribution, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is the mere presence of an accused at the scene of an occurrence, without specific injury attribution, sufficient to justify the grant of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused has already joined the police investigation and is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Shafi, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Iqbal, the petitioners have brought the instant petition seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No.232 dated 23-11-2002 under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 22-11-2002 at about 6-00 a.m. Muhammad Shafi armed with Soti, Ghulam Rasool with Sota, Mushtaq Ahmad with hatchet and Muhammad Iqbal with Sota in furtherance of their common intention have caused injury to Qaisar Abbas, the son of the complainant. Mushtaq Ahmad inflicted him hatchet blow hitting on his upper right side of the forehead and bleeding started from the wound and he fell down unconscious. On hue and cry, Akhtar Hussain and Nazar Muhammad were attracted to the spot. The accused on seeing them fled away with their weapons to their houses.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is the dispute over the land.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in with mala fide intention on the part of the complainant as civil litigation is going on between them and the complainant party; that they have been ascribed no injury to the injured Qaisar Abbas or anyone else: that their mere presence at the spot has been shown; that cross-version by petitioner No.2/Ghulam Rasool has been advanced and in the same Qaisar Abbas injured has been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up, therefore, it is yet to be determined that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State had opposed the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. Admittedly there is dispute over the land between the parties and the suit filed by the petitioner's side is pending against the complainant's side before the competent Civil Court.
8. They have been ascribed no injury to the injured Qaisar Abbas. Their mere presence at the spot has been shown. The petitioner No.2/Ghulam Rasool brought forth the cross-version in respect of the occurrence and in the same Qaisar Abbas has been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up. It is, therefore, yet to be determined that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon. Hence, their case is covered under sub--section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further enquiry into their guilt.
9. Admittedly, they have joined the police investigation and are not wanted for any further purpose of the same.
10. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
11. However, they shall join the investigation again if and when so required to do.
H.B.T./M-1811/L