--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmation of--Petitioner is a witness of FIR and he has falsely been involved in this case though he was given a role of causing injury on the left wrist of injured with iron rod--

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 10
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
FAHAD ALI--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 5914-B of 2022, decided on 27.10.2022.

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

---S. 498/198-A--Cross version--District Standing Medical Board, pinion--Possibility of fabrication--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmation of--Petitioner is a witness of FIR and he has falsely been involved in this case though he was given a role of causing injury on the left wrist of injured with iron rod--District Standing Medical Board was gave opinion that possibility of fabrication cannot be ruled out--Both the rival p[arties by attributing aggression to the other party, have leveled allegations against each other at the place of occurrence--Role of petitioner cannot be ascertained with certainly and malafide for his false implication in this cross version case cannot be ruled out--Malafide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence--Petitioner has made out the case for pre-arrest bail--Petition allowed.

                                                                   [Para 4 & 5] A, B, C, D & E

PLD 2021 SC 708; 2021 SCMR 130; 2022 SCMR 1424; 2022 SCMR 1271; 1996 SCMR 1845 ref.

Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Advocate with Petitioner.

Miss Asmat Parveen, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for State.

Nemo for Complainant

Date of hearing: 27.10.2022.

Order

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in cross version under Sections 337A(i)/337F(v)/337L(2)/148/149, PPC recorded in case FIR No. 466 dated 22.07.2022 registered at Police Station Machewal, District Vehari

2. Allegedly, petitioner alongwith his co-accused in prosecution of their common object, inflicted injuries on the persons of Imran Talha, complainant-injured of cross version, Shahzad, Zeeshan and Shahbaz, injured. Hence, this Case

3. Heard. Record perused,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner though was indicted in cross version but his name was mentioned as Muneer Ali otherwise he maintains his name as Fahad Ali. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor responded that it was only a clerical mistake of computer operator otherwise in the original statement, name Fahad Ali is reflected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Fahad Ali is a witness of FIR and he has (Falsely been involved in this case though he was given a role of causing Injury on the left wrist of Imran with iron rod but as a matter of fact doctor has observed injury on the dorsal surface of right hand finger with thumb and such injury was counted as falling under Section 337F(v) PPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that such injury was later attended by the District Standing Medical Board and gave opinion that possibility of fabrication cannot be ruled out. In wake of such circumstances, the case of petitioner has become one of further inquiry. Further, from perusal of the FIR as well as present cross-version, it evinces that both the rival parties by attributing aggression to the other party, have levelled allegations against each other at the place of occurrence. In any way, this being a case of two versions, which of the version is correct will be thrashed during the trial after recording of evidence. In the case Shoaib Mehmood Butt versus Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others” (1996 SCMR 1845), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“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.”

5. In such a situation role of petitioner cannot be ascertained with certainty and mala fide for his false implication in this cross version case cannot be ruled out. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 708) has held that mala fide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it was often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as “Khair Muhammad and another ve the State through PG. Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130) “Javed Iqbal Versus The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another” (2022 SCMR 1424) and “Muhammad Ijaz versus The STATE and others” (2022 SCMR 1271) that while deciding pre-arrest bail application merits of the case can be touched upon and benefit of doubt, if established, can be extended. In the circumstances, apparently the petitioner has made out the case for pre-arrest bail.

6. In the light of above circumstances, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(M.B.A.)         Petition allowed