MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was accused in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted in a case involving a cross-version where both parties sustained injuries, the complainant party's injuries were challaned, and the petitioner also suffered injuries including a head injury and a fracture. The Lahore High Court held that where both parties have suppressed each other's injuries and the police have challaned the complainant party, the matter constitutes a case of two versions falling within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a counter-version with injuries sustained by the accused party, which requires further inquiry, generally warrants the concession of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted in a criminal case where both parties have sustained injuries and a cross-version has been challaned?
- Does a case involving two competing versions attract the provisions of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was also received injuries in the instant case and his injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, that he was also medically examined through police on 18-9-2002, that one injury is on the head and other is chip fracture of one of the fingers of the petitioner that now there is a cross-version and the complainant party has also been challaned and they are on bail and petitioner should also be met with the same treatment.
2. On the other hand, learned' counsel for the complainant submits that counter-version is afterthought; that injuries on the person of the present petitioner are self-inflicted and the offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., however, learned State counsel submits that complainant party has also been challaned and according to him it is a case of two versions falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr . P. C .
3.I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was also injured, his medico-legal report has been placed on record, one injury is one the head while the other is chip fracture of one of the fingers. Both the parties have suppressed the injuries of each other, police has_ also challaned the complainant party and now it has become a case of two versions, therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amounot to the satisfaction of 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.