PLD 2024 SC 969
I. To constitute a cross-case, the mere assertion of a countercase is not enough. Courts are to tentatively assess that the parties, the venue, and the transaction prima facie led to the result of a single incident narrated differently by the opposing party. The rationale is that frivolous and false counter-cases, which can exaggeratedly be set up by the (naeem)opposite party, do not gain an advantage of the general rule and benefits arising out of a counter-case.
II. In cases of counter versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the F.I.R., and the other given by the opposite party, bail in appropriate cases is granted as a rule on the grounds of further inquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided after the recording of pro and contra evidence during the trial, and also to ascertain which party was the aggressor and which party was aggressed upon. The refusal of bail in such cases is an exception.
III. The exception to the rule of the grant of bail is in cases of counter versions or cross-cases, where prima facie the facts of the case suggest that the party seeking bail was an aggressor and/or(naeem) the material on the record suggests that the said party had an effective role in causing fatal injury.
IV. In counter versions of opposing parties, without specifying an effective role in causing fatal injury, leaves room for consideration of rendering a case within the purview of further inquiry, as provided under section 497 of Cr.P.C.
V. In cross-cases, wherein one party is granted the concession of bail, similar treatment is also rendered to the other side.
Crl.P.183-P/2022
Ahmad Ali v. The State
0 Comments