PLJ 2004
Cr.C. (
Present: NASIM SABIR, J. ZULFIQAR ALI and another-Petitioners
versus
STATE-Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 1566-B of 2004, decided on 23.6.2004. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-
—S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860),
Ss,337-A(i), 337-A (ii),
337-L (2), 337 F(ii) 337-C, 324, 34 Bail granted-Prayer for-Further
inquiry—Cross version—Question of aggressor—Prohibitory clause--
Determined-Both parties were injured by each other and it could not be
determined at that
stage, which party was aggressor-Held : Cases are
covered for grant of bail on ground of
further inquiry contemplate under
Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.-Bail granted
on ground of further enquiry for
reason that question as to which
version is correct is to be decided by trial
Court-Further Held : Case does not fall within prohibitory clause-Bail
granted. [Pp. 811 & 812] A, B & C
Mr. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Advocate for State. Date of hearing: 23.6.2004.
order
Zulfiqar Ali and Muhammad Ramzan-petitioners alongwith others stand involved in Crime Report No. 122, dated 12.6.2003, under Sections 337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/337-F(ii)/337-C/324/34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ghazi Abad, district Sahiwal, at the instance of one Muhammad Razzaq.
2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits
that offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not fall
within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; that it is a case of
two
version; that both the petitioners was injured in the same occurrence
and
they had also suffered four and six injuries respectively on their
person; that
cross version on behalf of the petitioner has also been recorded by the
police;
that in fact, the
complainant party was aggressor; that they have falsely been
involved in this case due to malafide and
ulterior motive; that Sections 337-C
and 324 P.P.C. are not attracted to
the facts and circumstances of this case;
that at the trial, it will be
determined whether these sections were applicable
or not; that co-accused of the
petitioners, namely, Muhammad Boota and
Muhammad Sharif had already been
released on bail, whereas Muhammad
Razzaq-accused in cross case from the
complainant side had also been
released on bail; that both the
petitioners are behind the bars since their
arrest i.e. 4.7.2003 and,
no more required
by the police for further
investigation and that their further
detention in jail will not serve any useful
purpose to the prosecution in any manner.
3.
Conversely, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State
submits that names of the petitioners are specifically mentioned in the
first
information report and they were armed with daggers and had caused
serious injuries to Muhammad Sadiq therefore, they are not entitled to be
released on bail
at this stage.
4.
Both the sides have been heard at length.
Perusal of the record
shows that it is a case of cross version. According to the prosecution, the
petitioners were armed with daggers and had unflicted serious injuries
to
Muhammad Sadiq
injured PW, whereas in the cross version, which has been
registered against Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad
Razzaq, Abdul Rasheed
and Muhammad Yaqoob, who have caused injuries to both the petitioners.
The report medico legal certificate
shows both the petitioners had received
four and six injuries respectively,
whereas Abdul Rasheed from the
complainant side had suffered three
injuries. Admittedly, it is case of cross
version where both the parties had
suffered injuries and it cannot be
determined at this stage, which party
was aggressor and which was
aggressed upon. Learned counsel for
the petitioners has relied upon on a
decided case reported as "Shoaib
Mehmood Butt versus Iftikhar-ul-Haq and
3 others" (1996 S.C.M.R. 1845), where it has been held that
in case of
counter versions arising from the
same incident, one given by complainant in
the F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite party. It is almost settled
that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry contemplated under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiiy for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. Normally the question arise as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against. Respectively following the dictum law laid down the august Supreme Court, I am of the view that case against the petitioners does not falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. entitling them to be released on bail.
5. Accordingly, by accepting this petition, I direct that the petitioners be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the
sum of Rs. l.OO.OOO/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
(M.A.) Bail granted.