PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (
[
Present: Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J.
LIAQAT ALI--Petitioner
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 1888-B of 2007, decided on 2.10.2007.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860)--Ss. 337-A(i), 337-A(ii)--337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-(ii), 148 & 149--Bail, grant of--Prayer for--Cross version--Determination by trial Court, which party was aggressor--In such cases bail was granted on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that the question as to which version was correct was to be decided by trial Court, which was supposed to record evidence and also appraised the same in order to come to a final conclusion in such regard--Held: Probability of counter--version being true as some of accused had received injury--S. 337-A(iii), PPC is not attracted to the petitioner but to co-accused--Bail was allowed.
[P. 301] A
Mr. Saghir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Tahir Mehmood, Advocate for Complainant.
Ch. Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, D.P.G. for State.
Date of hearing: 2.10.2007.
Order
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 15/2007 dated 12.01.2007 registered under Sections 337-A(1), 337-A(2), 337-A(3), 337-F(i), 337-F(5), 337-L (2), 148, 149 P.P.C. at Police Station Gaggoo District Vehari.
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that on 12.1.2007 complainant Abdul Kareem lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others stating therein that the complainant alongwith his wife and sons was going to the fields,; when they reached near their fields they saw the accused giving first blows to Ghulam Hussain and abusing him. When the complainant and other persons interfered, the accused Liaqat Ali gave a blow with the iron rod which fell on the head of the complainant; the accused Naeem gave a blow with iron rod which fell on the nose of the complainant, the co-accused Ramzan gave a sota blow which fell on the arm of the complainant. The complainant fell down on the ground. All the accused gave him blows which fell on different parts of his body. The accused also injured Ghulam Hussain, Mukhtar Bibi wife of the brother of the complainant.
3. The petitioner applied for grant of post-arrest bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Burewala, which has been declined vide order dated 7.8.2007.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a sudden fight and not pre-planned. Further that the complainant party was the aggressor one and the accused have acted in self-defence; that the accused party also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party; that the cross-version of the petitioner had been recorded against the complainant party and Haq Nawaz previous I.O. had held the cross-version to be correct, thereafter, in violation of Article 18(6) of the Police Order 2002, the investigation was changed and the petitioner's cross-version was discharged. The petitioner has now filed a private complaint. Further contended that the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail. Further that it is a case of counter-version; that there is a delay of one day in lodging of the FIR; that the offence attributed to the petitioner in the FIR is Section 337-A(2) P.P.C. the punishment of which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and in such like offence bail is granted as a rule and refusal an exception. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 S.C. 34). Further contended that the cross-version of the petitioner was concealed by the police on the basis of mala fide. That the petitioner had been attributed Injuries No. 1 and 2 according to the medical report and those fall within Section 337-A(ii), which does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and there is no progress in the trial of the case; and that during the investigation nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the cases of Lateef and another v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 585) and Shoaib Mehmood Butt vs. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCMR 1845).
5. On the other hand, the grant of bail has been opposed by the learned D.P.G. as well as the counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and specific injuries are attributed to him; that the petitioner has repeated the blows and the injuries are on the vital part of the body of the victim. Further that the offence under Section 337-A(iii) P.P.C. is attracted towards the petitioner, which entails ten years punishment, hence, it falls within the prohibitory clause.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is a case of cross-version as is apparent from the FIR itself that Rizwan and Liaqat, the petitioner also were injured in the scuffle. It is yet to be determined by the trial Court, which party was aggressor and in such like cases the bail has been allowed by the superior Courts. In such cases 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 evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. There is probability of counter-version being true as some of the accused had received injuries. Moreover, Section 337-A(iii) P.P.C. is not attracted to the petitioner but to Naeem co-accused.
8. For what has been discussed above, without prejudicing to the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(R.A.) Bail allowed.