ABDUL SHAKOOR vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Shakoor, in connection with FIR No. 323/2003, registered at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, for offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-H(v), 337-H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have caused a single injury with an iron rod to the complainant, Naik Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of cross-versions of the incident, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the single, non-repeated nature of the injury attributed to him. The Court held that the case presented two conflicting versions of the incident, necessitating further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, particularly regarding the determination of the aggressor and the applicability of vicarious liability. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that where the culpability of an accused remains subject to further inquiry due to conflicting versions of an incident, bail is appropriate pending trial.
- Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident in an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry into an accused's guilt for bail purposes?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the injury attributed to them is single and non-repeated?
- Does the uncertainty regarding which party was the aggressor in a criminal altercation justify the grant of bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 323, dated 25.8.2003, registered at Police Station, Harappa, District Sahiwal, under Sections 337-A(i), (iii), 337-H (v), 337-H (ii), 148 and 149 PPC.
2. A blow with iron rod on the head of Naik Muhammad is attributed to the petitioner. According to the FIR, both the parties were armed and the accused party was the aggressor.
3. Inter-alia, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the FIR, complainant party was also, armed; that in fact said party was the aggressor; it is a case of two versions and that there is delay of about two days in loading the FIR.
4. Bail application is opposed by the learned State counsel.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Only one injury with iron rod on the head of Naik Muhammad is attributed to the petitioner, which was admittedly not repeated; from a perusal of police record, it appears to be a case of two versions. It would be established at the trial as to who was the aggressor and whether it is a case of vicarious liability. In view thereof, case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.