Opposite-party case law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.

 In support of afore-mentioned view this Court is guided from the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in case reported as Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikharul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCMR 1845) which is as under:- 

“In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite-party case law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry 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. In cases of counter-versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed.” 

 If any further reference in this regard is needed that can be made to the case reported as Muhammad Shahzad Siddique v. The State and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58).

  Part of Judgment 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI.

Crl. Misc.-Post-arrest Bail
3607-B-20

2020 LHC 1847