PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 45
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337-F(V)/ 337-F(III)/337-F(I)/148/149--Cross-version--No ground of granting bail--Promptly lodged FIR--Specific role of firing at the head--Day light occurrence--Rule of consistency--Co-accused were ascribed simple injuries--Bail--dismissal of--Petitioner has duly been nominated in the crime report and a specific role of firing at the head of complainant’s father has been ascribed to him--The injury ascribed to the petitioner was present on the body of the deceased and the same became the cause of his death--Promptly lodged FIR--Day light occurrence and the parties were known to each other prior to the occurrence--There is no chance of mis-identification--So far as the cross-version in concerned--Mere existence of a cross-version could not alone be considered a sufficient ground to grant bail--Rule of consistency--Co-accused were ascribed simple injuries on the person of the injured--This petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed. [Pp. 46 & 47] A, B, C & D
Mr. Munawar Iqbal Gondal, ASC for Petitioner.
Mr. Khurram Khan, Add. P.G., for State.
Date of hearing: 30.9.2022.
PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 45
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J. and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J.
versus
STATE and others--Respondents
Crl. P. No. 433-L of 2022, decided on 30.9.2022.
(On appeal against the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the
Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal
Misc. No. 4790-B/ 2021/BWP)
Order
Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J.--Through the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, with a prayer to grant post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 164 dated 23.04.2021 under Sections 302/ 324/337-F(v)/337-F(iii)/337-F(i)/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Ahmadpur Lamma, District Rahim Yar Khan, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.
2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused while armed with .12 bore gun launched a murderous assault on the complainant party. The petitioner fired a shot from his gun, which hit on the head of Haji Muhammad Panah, father of the complainant, due to which he died at the spot.
3. At the very outset, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the petitioner has been involved in the case due to personal grudge and mala fide intention of the complainant. Contends that in-fact the complainant party was aggressor and during the occurrence, six persons from the petitioner's side also sustained injuries, which have been suppressed by the prosecution. Contends that a cross-version was also recorded by the petitioner's side in this regard but the learned High Court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter. Contends that co-accused of the petitioners have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court and only the petitioner is behind the bars, therefore, following the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail. Contends that the impugned order is not inconsonance with the well settled principles of criminal justice laid down by this Court, therefore, the same may be set at naught.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the impugned order whereby post-arrest bail was declined to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has specifically been nominated in the crime report with a specific allegation of taking life of complainant's father by making a fire shot on his head, which entails capital punishment, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record.
A bare perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has duly been nominated in the crime report and a specific role of firing at the head of complainant's father has been ascribed to him. According to medical evidence, the injury ascribed to the petitioner was present on the body of the deceased and the same became the cause of his death. The occurrence took place at 08.00 a.m. while the matter was reported to the Police at 10.45 a.m. Keeping in view the inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station i.e. 13
kilometers, the same would be considered a promptly lodged FIR. It was a day light occurrence and the parties were known to each other prior to the occurrence, therefore, there is no chance of mis-identification. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is also supported by the statements of three injured PWs namely Sanwal Khan, Shahid Khan and Ibrahim. We have been informed that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner on 17.06.2021. So far as the cross-version is concerned, the learned High Court has rightly noted that a bare perusal of the cross-version reveals that neither the petitioner is mentioned as the one who was present at the place of occurrence nor any claim of right of private defence of person or property has been made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. The learned High Court by placing reliance on the judgments of this Court has rightly held that mere existence of a cross-version could not alone be considered a sufficient ground to grant bail to an accused. So far as the argument that co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, therefore, following the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserves the same treatment is concerned, the same is misconceived simply for the reason that his case is different from that of the co-accused. The co-accused were ascribed simple injuries on the person of the injured whereas, as discussed above, the petitioner has been ascribed a specific role of making fire shot at the head of the deceased, which proved fatal. A tentative assessment of the record makes it clear that sufficient material is available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The learned High Court has passed a well reasoned order, which is in line with the guidelines enunciated by this Court on the subject from time to time.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
(K.Q.B.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments