2017 PLP 173 (YLRN)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

Applicant/accused was earlier granted ad interim pre-arrest bail by this court on 19/06/2015 in crime No. 35 of 2015, Police Station Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta, under Section 324/506(2)/504/ 147/148/149/114 and 337-F(ii), P.P.C.; hence same ripe up for confirmation or otherwise.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; per learned counsel there are counter cases lodged by the respective parties against each other; per learned counsel it has to be seen at the time of trial which party is aggressor; per learned counsel applicant/accused is regularly attending the Court; per learned counsel the injury so as alleged is on non-vital part of the body; per learned counsel the applicant is first offender and is not habitual offender; per learned counsel the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant may be confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the confirmation of bail and had contended that there is serious injury inflicted to the complainant; per learned counsel applicant/accused is not entitled for the confirmation of bail; per learned counsel the ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be recalled.

4. Learned APG opposed the grant of confirmation of bail but latter did not controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused.

5. Heard.

6. This is a case for confirmation of bail. Applicant/accused Syed Ali Akbar Shah as alleged fired upon Abbass Khashkheli who is injured in counter case bearing crime No. 35 of 2015. The prime consideration in cross version cases is as to who the aggressor was and who was aggressed upon and not the injuries caused to one side only or that the loss/damage caused to one party is greater than caused to the other which is only a relevant factor and does not have overriding effect. In this view of the matter, who has acted in self defence and who has attacked, is a matter of further inquiry, on the basis of which the applicant is found entitled to the concession of bail in light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Muhammad Shahzad Siddique v. The State and another" PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58) which runs as under:-- "Cases of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in FIR and the other given by the opposite party, are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Bail in such cases is normally granted on the ground of further inquiry because question as to which version is correct is to be determined by the trial Court after appraising the evidence recorded by it, for reaching the final conclusion in this regard. Plea of private defence is normally taken in case of counter-versions giving rise to question as to which party has acted in aggression and which party is an aggressed one"

7. I am also fortified with the case law as in the case of Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain alias Papu Chaman Patiwala and others reported as (2011 SCMR 606) and Hamza Ali Hamza and others v. The State reported in (2010 SCMR 1219).

8. Under the circumstances, the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 19/06/2015 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. WA/A-29/Sindh Bail confirmed.