PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 18
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 498 & 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(i), (iii), (v), 337-A(i), 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Cross-version--Allegation of--Petitioner is nominated in cross-version with specific role of causing fire-arm injury--In case of counter-version arising from same incident, one given by complainant in FIR and other given by opposite 3 party, it is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant bail on ground of further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C--In such cases normally, bail is granted on ground of further inquiry for reason that question as to which version is correct is to be decided by trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard--It is yet to be determined as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against--The offences alleged against petitioner are bailable in nature--Prima facie, prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect petitioner with commission of alleged offences and chances of his false implication with malafide intention cannot be ruled out--Petitioner has already joined investigation, therefore, sending petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose--Bail allowed. [Para 5 & 6] A & B
Syed Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, DPG for State.
Date of hearing: 26.8.2021.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 18
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUHAMMAD LATEEF--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 5475-B of 2021, decided on 26.8.2021.
Order
By filing instant petition under Section 498, CrP.C, the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Lateef seeks pre-arrest bail in cross-version under Section 324, 337-F(i) H (ii) 148, 149, PPC, recorded in case FIR No. 129/2020, dated 06.5.2020, offences under Sections 324, 337-F(v), F(iii), F(i), A(i), 148, 149, PPC, registered with the Police Station Sheikh Fazil, District Vehari.
2. As per narration of cross-version got lodged by Rashid Ali complainant, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 04.5.2020 the petitioner alongwith his co-accused while armed with fire-arm weapons opened firing upon the complainant’s party in order to get the possession of land and injured them. During the occurrence, the petitioner fired a shot with his gun, which hit right left of complainant’s father.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Although the petitioner is nominated in the cross-version with specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the person of Ahmed Ali but the learned DPG, after consulting the record brought by Mehboob ASI, submits that vide case diary No. 38 dated 28.5.2021 Inspector DIB/Investigating Officer has deleted the offence under Section 324, PPC and added the offence under Section 337-H(ii), PPC, which is bailable in nature.
5. Moreover, Ahmed Ali injured is an accused in FIR and has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 6537-B of 2020. Khalid Ahmed accused in FIR has also been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 08.9.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 4675-B of 2020. Apart from the above, the instant case appears to be a brawl as both the parties scuffled and not only injured each other. In the case of counter-Version arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the FIR 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 as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally, bail is granted on the ground of further inquiry 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 the evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. It is yet to be determined as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed against.
6. The offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature. Prima facie, the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offences and chances of his false implication with malafide intention cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has already joined the investigation, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
7. Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments