2025 PLP 1457 (SCMR)
ZULQARNAIN HAIDER alias Zain — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 1457 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ |
| Parties | ZULQARNAIN HAIDER alias Zain — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 1457 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 1457 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 1457 (SCMR) (ZULQARNAIN HAIDER alias Zain — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. Misc. No. 1096-B of 2025).
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-H(2), 440, 148 & 149
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly
Cross version
Allegation against the petitioner-accused was that he along with co-accused committed murder of the deceased and caused injuries to the injured witness
Record showed that another report of the same occurrence had been registered by accused, also including the same place, time and date of occurrence, while involving the same parties inter se
However, that second report was registered on 21.05.2023, with a delay of four days
From one side deceased had lost his life and injured sustained injuries while in the second report two persons sustained injuries
When both versions were placed in juxtaposition, it became apparent that the allegations in both complaints were qua the same incident, as they shared a common nexus in terms of date, time, location, motive and parties involved
Apparent distinction laid in the sequence of reporting
Such factual overlap, prima facie, reflected that the two versions were antithetical claims arising out of one and the same occurrence thus, portraying the current scenario as cross version
Supreme Court observed that it was not in agreement with the High Court on not allowing bail to the petitioner on the basis of cross-version
In cases involving cross-versions of the same occurrence, the prime consideration before the Court is to ascertain which party is the aggressor and which party is aggressed upon
Nature, seat, and number of injuries sustained by each side may undoubtedly be relevant; however, such factors are merely indicative and do not, by themselves, carry an overriding or conclusive effect
Mere extent of injuries caused to one party could not serve as the sole basis for drawing an adverse inference against the other, especially where both versions emanated from the same transaction and each party attributed aggression to the other
In cases of counter versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the FIR, 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
Refusal of bail in such cases is an exception
Additionally, the petitioner was in custody for the last 23 months and despite the lapse of such a considerable period, there appeared to be no substantial progress in the trial pending before the Trial Court
Such prolonged incarceration, without meaningful advancement in the trial, raised a serious concern regarding the petitioner's right to a fair and expeditious trial
Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and petitioner was granted bail. Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed 1976 SCMR 391; Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali 1972 SCMR 682; Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool 2013 SCMR 1415 and Khizar Hayat v. The State 2024 SCMR 1605 rel. Tariq Siddique, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 348 dated 16.05.2023, under Sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 440, 148 and 149 P.P.C. Police Station Kallar Syedan, District Rawalpindi, following the dismissal of his bail petition by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi and the court below.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner along with co-accused forming an unlawful assembly while being armed with deadly weapon is alleged of committing murder of Yasir Ali (deceased) and causing injury to Qamar Zaman (PW) as recorded in FIR No. 348 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023 at 2:45 P.M. The occurrence is stated to have taken place over a land dispute being the motive.
3. The matter has been thoroughly heard and the record has been perused.
4. We noticed from record that another report of the same occurrence has been registered by Hassan Akhtar (accused of FIR No. 348 ibid), also including the same place, time and date of occurrence, while involving the same parties inter se. However, this second report was registered on 21.05.2023, with a delay of four days. From one side deceased, Yasir Malik has lost his life and Qamar Zaman sustained injuries while in the second report two persons namely Hassan Akhtar and Waqar Khalid Qureshi sustained injuries.
5. When both versions are placed in juxtaposition, it becomes apparent that the allegations in both complaints are qua the same incident, as they share a common nexus in terms of date, time, location, motive, and parties involved. The only apparent distinction lies in the sequence of reporting. This factual overlap, prima facie, reflects that the two versions are antithetical claims arising out of one and the same occurrence thus, portraying the current scenario as cross version and we are not in agreement with the Hon'ble Lahore Court on not allowing bail to the petitioner on the basis of cross-version. The reason being that in cases involving cross-versions of the same occurrence, it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prime consideration before the Court is to ascertain which party was the aggressor and which party was aggressed upon. The nature, seat, and number of injuries sustained by each side may undoubtedly be relevant; however, such factors are merely indicative and do not, by themselves, carry an overriding or conclusive effect. The mere extent of injuries caused to one party cannot serve as the sole basis for drawing an adverse inference against the other, especially where both versions emanate from the same transaction and each party attributes aggression to the other.
6. In cases of counter versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the FIR, 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. Reliance is placed upon Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed 1976 SCMR 391, Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali 1972 SCMR 682, Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool 2013 SCMR 1415 and Khizar Hayat v. The State 2024 SCMR 1605.
7. Additionally, the petitioner is in custody for the last 23 months, and despite the lapse of such a considerable period, there appears to be no substantial progress in the trial pending before the learned trial court. This prolonged incarceration, without meaningful advancement in the trial, raises a serious concern regarding the petitioner's right to a fair and expeditious trial.
8. In view of the overall circumstances of the given case, we are unable to discern any compelling reason that would justify the continued denial of bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition, therefore, is converted into an appeal and is allowed. The petitioner is granted post arrest bail on furnishing surety bond in sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-with two separate sureties in like amount to satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. JK/Z-4/SC Appeal allowed.