Well settled that mere abscondance of an accused does not disentitle him from relief of bail if otherwise he is entitled to said concession on merits--

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 414

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(v), 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail, confirmed--Cross-version case--No possibility of fabrication of injury--Determination--Abscondance of accused--Entitlement for relief--Medical officer in relevant columns of medico legal reports of accused of cross-version case has categorically mentioned that there was no possibility of fabrication of any injury of  injured--As it is a case of cross-versions therefore, it will be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence that as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon and as such, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out accused remained absconder in this case, therefore, he is not entitled to extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail but it is by now well settled that mere abscondance of an accused does not disentitle him from relief of bail if otherwise he is entitled to said concession on merits--Petition allowed.                                                                                  [P. 416] A & B

2010 SCMR 1219, 2015 SCMR 879, 1991 SCMR 322, 2009 SCMR 299 and PLD 2012 SC 222 ref.

Mr. Muhammad Ijrar Haider, Advocate with Petitioner.

Ms. Maida Sobial, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Mehar Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 11.3.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 414
Present: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.
Syed NASIR ALI--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 11003-B of 2020, decided on 11.3.2020.

Order

The petitioner Syed Nasir Ali through the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail in cross-version of case FIR No. 453 dated 29.06.2017 registered at P.S. City Depalpur District Okara cross-version offences under Sections 324/337-F(v)/148/149 of PPC.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. As per brief allegations leveled in the cross-version of the aforementioned FIR, on 28.06.2017 at 03:00 p.m, Tanveer Aslam (complainant of cross-version case) along with PWs was going to his house on car and when they reached near Shell Patrol Pump of Meer Amanullah at Kasur Road, Muhammad Asif co-accused stopped the car of the complainant and raised ‘lalkara’ to teach a lesson for getting stay order against them (accused party), upon which, Mohsin Tariq co-accused made a fire shot with pistol 30 bore at Tanveer Aslam (complainant of cross-version) but luckily the complainant escaped. The second fire shot of aforementioned co-accused was missed. In the meanwhile Nasir Ali (petitioner) inflicted ‘sota’ blow which hit at the left wrist of the complainant. Sajid co-accused inflicted ‘sota’ blow which landed on the back side of right shoulder of the complainant due to which the complainant fell down. On the instigation of the petitioner, Nadeem co-accused inflicted ‘sota’ blow which landed at the middle of left arm of the complainant. Thereafter, all the accused persons inflicted ‘sota’ blows at different parts of the body of Tanveer Aslam hence, the instant cross-version.

4. It is a case of cross-versions. The occurrence in this case took place on 28.06.2017 at 03:00p.m. Four members of the accused party of cross-version, namely, Syed Nasir Ali (petitioner), Syed Aftab Ali, Mohsin Tariq and Muhammad Shahbaz were also injured during the occurrence and they were medically examined on the same day i.e. on 28.6.2017 at 04:15 p.m. As per medico legal report of Syed Nasir (petitioner), there were 09 injuries on his body, which were declared to be punishable under Sections 337-A(i) & 337-F(i) of PPC. According to

medico legal reports of Syed Aftab, Shahbaz and Mohsin Tariq, there were 02, 06 & 05 injuries, respectively, on the bodies of abovementioned members of the accused party of cross-version case. Medical Officer in the relevant columns of the medico legal reports of the abovementioned accused of cross-version case (injured of the State case) has categorically mentioned that there was no possibility of fabrication of any injury of the aforementioned injured. As it is a case of cross-versions therefore, it will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence that as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon and as such, a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in favour of the petitioner, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of ‘Hamza Ali Hamza and others vs. The State’ (2010 SCMR 1219) & ‘Syed Darbar Ali Shah and others vs. The State' (2015 SCMR 879). Although it has been argued by learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner remained absconder in this case, therefore, he is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail but it is by now well settled that mere abscondance of an accused does not disentitle him from the relief of bail if otherwise he is entitled to the said concession on merits. Reference in this context may be made to the cases reported as ‘The State vs. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan’ (1991 SCMR 322), ‘Mitho Pitafi vs. The State’ (2009 SCMR 299) and ‘Qamar alias Mitho vs. The State and others’ (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 222).

5. In the light of above, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing the fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(Y.A.)  Petition allowed