2018 PLP 42 (YLRN)
MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 42 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 42 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 42 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 42 (YLRN) (MANZOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nadeem Ashraf Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(iii), 337-V, 355, 148 & 149
Hurt, assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person otherwise than on grave provocation, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly
Accused was attributed the role of causing injury on the nose of injured
Medical examination of injured was conducted with a delay of two days
Cross version was recorded with a delay of three days which prima facie showed that some had been recorded after due deliberation and consultation
Injured had not appeared before the Standing Medical Board constituted by the order of Magistrate for his medical re-examination despite summoning for three times
Case had become the case of two versions after registration of cross version and as to which party was aggressor would be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence
In a case of cross versions, if one party had been allowed bail, the other party would also be entitled to the same relief
Accused was previous non-convict and never involved in any other case
Accused was behind the bars since five months
Investigation of case was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars
Case of accused had become one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 2 of the judgment] PLD 2009 SC 58 rel.
S.497
Principle
In a case of counter versions if one party had been allowed bail, the other party would also be entitled to the same relief. [Para. 2 of the judgment] PLD 2009 SC 58 rel. Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and Zafar A.S.I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in cross-version under sections 337A(iii), 337V, 355, 148, 149, P.P.C. got recorded by Muhammad Irshad in case FIR No.86/16 dated 10.03.2016, registered at Police Station Satghara, District Okara.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage, therefore, without going deeper into the facts of the case, it has been noticed that the petitioner is the accused of cross-version got recorded by Muhammad Irshad complainant, wherein he has been attributed the role of causing injury on the nose of Safdar injured, but admittedly there is a delay of two days in medical examination of said Safdar injured and three days delay in recording cross-version, which prima facie shows that cross-version has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. It is also an admitted fact that Safdar injured has not appeared before the Standing Medical Board constituted by the order of learned Magistrate concerned for his medical reexamination despite three times summoning on 06.04.2017, 17.04.2017 and 20.04.2017. These facts prima facie create ,doubt in this case to the extent of the petitioner. After registration of cross-version, this case has become. the case of two-versions and which party is aggressor is to .be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. During arguments, it transpired that the accused of FIR are on bail. It is settled law that in case of counter versions, if one party is allowed bail, then the other parties is also entitled to the same relief. In this respect, reliance can be placed on PLD 2009 SC
58. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He was arrested in this case on 07.12,2016. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order, it is deemed appropriate to clarify that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/M-77/L Bail granted.