Case of two versions

Accused persons along with co-accused were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and launched murderous assault on the complainant party as a result of which five persons were injured

One of the accused persons was accused of giving sota blow to the injured on his nose

Medical officer had declared said injury to be Shajjah-i-hashimah

Accused persons had challenged his Medico-legal Certificate but the injured had not appeared before the District Standing Medical Board despite several notices, hence further inquiry was required to determine not only the guilt of accused but also whether he had committed non-bailable offence

Injuries attributed to other accused persons were bailable

Case was of two versions: one was set out in the FIR while the other was narrated by the accused persons

Trial Court would determine after recording evidence as to which party was the aggressor

Applications for grant of pre-arrest bail were allowed, in circumstances.

Admittedly, present case was one of two versions, one brought by the complainant on the record through the FIR and the second was brought on the record by the accused persons through their defence, which was not investigated by the investigating officer

However, the version of accused persons was supported by the Medico Legal Certificate, so, it was (yet) to be determined by the Trial Court as to which version was the correct one

False implication of the accused persons could not be ruled out

Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry, and sending them behind bars would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused persons was confirmed, in circumstances.

Concise allegation against the accused was that he gave butt blows with pistol on left side of the face of complainant, however, it was concluded during investigation that the accused was merely present on the spot at the time of incident

Accused and others had received injuries during the incident regarding which an FIR was lodged on the application of paternal uncle of accused

Case was of two versions and it was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence as to which party was the aggressor and which party was aggressed upon

Mala fide on the part of complainant for false implication of the accused could not be ruled out

Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused and his co-accused persons escaped from the scene of occurrence while resorting to indiscriminate firing which as per prosecution case ultimately had hit one of the co-accused who succumbed to the injuries after five to seven days

In the FIR allegation of firing was ascribed to all the accused while escaping from the scene of occurrence, whereas, the dying declaration of deceased-co-accused and application moved by his wife before the police alleged that the firing was made by the accused

Allegation against the accused was of two versions, one advanced in the crime report, the other brought on the record in the shape of statement of deceased-co-accused as well as mentioned in the application filed by his widow

In such circumstances, culpability of accused could not be adjudicated at present stage rather it would be decided by the Trial Court after recording of evidence during the course of trial

Case against accused was one of further inquiry falling under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him for the relief of bail

Accused was granted bail accordingly.

Allegations against the accused was that he along with co-accused abducted niece of complainant and whereafter co-accused committed rape with her

Alleged victim got recorded statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. in which she had not levelled allegation of rape against accused and categorically stated that accused kept on guarding the premises where she was detained

Alleged victim levelled allegations against accused that he committed rape with her in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. recorded after seventeen days of statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Medico Legal Report of victim revealed no marks of violence on any part of her body

During investigation it had come on record that accused was not found involved in occurrence and his discharge report was prepared but same was disagreed by the Magistrate

Although opinion of police was not binding on court yet same could be taken into consideration while deciding bail application

Keeping in view contents of FIR and outcome of investigation, prima facie case of prosecution to the extent of accused had become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by complainant and other came on record during investigation and which version was correct would be decided by Trial Court after recording evidence

Accused was previous non-convict and never involved in any other case

Accused was behind the bars for two months without any fruitful progress in trial

Report of Forensic Science Agency regarding swabs was still awaited

Nobody could be kept in jail for indefinite period

Investigation of case was complete and he was no more required for further investigation

No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars thus his further incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose

Bail was granted accordingly.

Accused was assigned the role of causing iron-rod blow on the face of the complainant and initially the injury attributed to the accused was declared by the doctor as shajjah-i-hashimah but later on same was deleted

During the course of investigation the accused was held liable only to the extent of offence under S.342, P.P.C. which was bailable in nature

Prima facie case against the accused had become a case of two versions in view of the allegations contained in FIR and the facts emerging during the course of investigation

Question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of accused would be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence

Accused was previous non-convict, neither he was hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal nor had committed the alleged occurrence on the pretext of honour

Recovery of weapon of offence after the lapse of about four months and twenty days would be of little help to the prosecution

Accused had already joined investigation which was complete, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars so as to enable him to come out of jail on post arrest bail after a few days

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed accordingly.

Although accused was named in FIR with the role of causing firearm injury on left wrist of deceased, yet no firearm injury was observed during postmortem examination; injuries were observed around his left elbow

During investigation, accused was shown just present at the spot at the time of occurrence; he was empty handed and did not cause any injury to the deceased

Case, in circumstances, became a case of two versions

Accused was previous non-convict and was behind the bars for seven and half months without any fruitful progress in his trial

Investigation of the case to the extent of accused was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation

Mere heinousness of offence or absconsion of accused were no grounds for refusal of bail, if otherwise accused was entitled for the same

Benefit of doubt could be given to accused even at bail stage

No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars at present stage

Bail was granted accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, damiyah, mutalahimah, hashimah, abetment, common intention

Bail, grant of

Case of two versions

Further inquiry

Accused was charged with the offence that he along with co-accused while armed with Kalashnikov made fire shots on the complainant party, due to which, one person died and other sustained injury

Record showed that co-accused caused fire arm injury to the deceased

Record showed that accused neither caused any injury to the deceased or injured nor he was present at the spot

Although, opinion of the police was not binding on the court, yet the same could be taken into consideration while deciding bail application

Contents of the FIR and outcome of the investigation revealed that prima facie, the case of the prosecution to the extent of accused had become a case of two versions; one put forward by the complainant and the other coming on record during investigation and as to which version was correct would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Nothing was recovered from the accused-petitioner during investigation

Question of sharing common intention for the murder of the deceased would be decided after recording of evidence

Admittedly, the accused-petitioner was previous non-convict and was behind the bars for the last more than four months

Investigation of the case was complete and the accused-petitioner was no more required for further investigation and his incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose

Circumstances established that the case of the accused-petitioner had become one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed in circumstances.

Facts remained that the injury attributed to the accused petitioner was on right leg and foot of injured and admittedly he had not repeated the fire

Question as to whether provisions of offence under S. 324, P.P.C. were attracted in such a case or not would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Remaining offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

During investigation, it had come on the record that accused petitioner was merely present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he did not cause any injury to the injured

Allegations contained in FIR and the facts emerged during the course of investigation, prima facie, the case against the accused petitioner had become a case of two versions; one put by the complainant in FIR and the other came on record during investigation, as to which version was correct and question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the accused petitioner would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Admittedly accused petitioner was previous non-convict and was behind the bars and no more required for further investigation as the investigation to the extent of accused petitioner had been completed

Nothing had been recovered from the accused petitioner during the course of investigation

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars at present stage

Case of accused fell in the ambit of further inquiry covered by S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was allowed bail accordingly.

Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed accordingly.

Defence had alleged that murder of the deceased was committed by some unknown persons as there was enmity between father of the deceased and other persons

Where the case was that of two versions, one version was to be believed in toto and not in piecemeal

Court was duty bound to review the entire evidence that had been produced by the prosecution and the defence

In the present case, versions of both the parties were considered and the version put forth by the prosecution seemed to be trustworthy, based on unimpeachable and tangible evidence

FIR had been promptly lodged and accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role; prosecution eye-witnesses had implicated the accused in the commission of offence; incident was of daylight and the defence had failed to establish false implication or substitution; oral and medical evidence were in line and accused remained absconder for seven months

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

One version set out in FIR and brought on record through prosecution and second one having been brought on record by the statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., court was required to anlayse the prosecution version first in order to ascertain its truthfulness or otherwise.

Both the versions were to be taken in juxtaposition by the court and thereafter it was to be seen as to which version was more probable and nearer to the truth.

Allegation contained in FIR and the facts emerged during the course of investigation, prima facie showed that case against the accused had become a case of two versions, one put forward by the complainant in the FIR and the other coming on record during investigation

As to which version was correct, was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Admittedly, accused was previous non-convict

Accused was behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the Jail

Investigation had been completed and accused was no more required for investigation

Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail if otherwise accused was entitled to the concession of bail

Attending circumstances rendered the case against accused one of further inquiry into his guilt

Accused was granted bail accordingly.

Shajjah-i-mudihah,shajjah-i-khafifah, hashimah, hurt which endangers life or which causes sufferer for remain severe bodily pain or renders him unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for twenty days or more, itlaf-i-udw, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Case of two versions

Allegations against the accused were that he, while armed with club along with co-accused persons equipped with different weapons caused injuries to complainant's mother and others

Blunt weapon injury assigned to present accused on right hand of injured constituted offence punishable under S. 337-F(v) of Penal Code, 1860 that carried maximum sentence of imprisonment exceeding up to five years, being so, did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Cr.P.C.

Case was of two versions as accused side had also sustained injuries at the hands of complainant party during occurrence

Accused was having no previous criminal record and was behind the bars since his arrest on 26.10.2016 though not required for investigation purpose

Conclusion of trial was not in sight and keeping accused incarcerated till indefinite period was not likely to serve any useful purpose

Accused was not a desperate and hardened criminal as admitted by Prosecutor during the arguments

Accused had no previous criminal record and offence alleged was not of heinous nature

Absconsion of accused could not disentitle him to grant of post arrest bail

Bail was granted accordingly.

Allegation against the accused was that he, along with his co-accused, made a fire shot with pistol at injured which landed on his left thigh

Accused had not repeated the fire; hence, attraction of S.324, Penal Code, 1860 to the extent of accused shall be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Accused, during investigation was merely found present at the spot along with pistol and had not caused any injury to the injured

Although, opinion of police was not binding on the court, yet the same could be taken into consideration while deciding bail application, therefore, by keeping in view contents of FIR and outcome of investigation, prima facie case of prosecution to the extent of accused had become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation

As to which version was correct would be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Accused was behind the bars since 30.08.2016 without fruitful progress in his trial

Accused was previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of like nature

Investigation of case was complete and accused was not required for further investigation

Offence with which accused was charged was triable by Magistrate S.30 who was competent to pass sentence for seven years only

Maximum punishment provided under the law was not to be considered while dealing with bail application

Heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse concession of bail to accused who otherwise, became entitled for concession of bail on merits of case

No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars

Bail was granted accordingly.

In a case of two versions court was required to first analyze the prosecution version in order to ascertain its truthfulness or otherwise.

Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, mischief and abetment

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Case of two versions

Allegation against the accused was that he along with co-accused made firing on complainant party, resultantly one person of complainant party died

Investigation showed that accused was not present at the spot and nothing was recovered from his possession

Opinion of the police though was not binding on the courts of law, yet the same could be considered at bail stage

Contents of FIR and outcome of investigation, prima facie, showed a case of two versions, one put forward by the complainant in FIR and the other came on the record during investigation which version if found to be correct would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Attending circumstances bringing the case of accused within the ambit of further inquiry covered under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused was allowed bail accordingly.

Prosecution had alleged that accused-appellant got hold of minor from her legs and banged her head against a carpeted floor, resultantly she succumbed to injuries

Defence had alleged that minor had fallen on the ground from the hands of her mother/injured witness during scuffle, which took place in the house of parents of his wife/injured witness

Validity

Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem of the deceased minor deposed that possibility could not be ruled out that injury was caused to deceased due to fall on the floor

Said witness had not confirmed that the injury was caused by banging the head of the deceased on the carpeted floor

Circumstances created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused-appellant

Accused appellant was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Qatl-bis-sabab, escape from confinement or custody by public servant and resistance or obstruction to his lawful apprehension

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Benefit of doubt

Case of two versions

Prosecution had alleged that missing person (in police custody) was threatened by the accused persons (police officials) to face dire consequences of his misdeeds, which compelled him to commit suicide

Prosecution witnesses had alleged that missing person was a frequent visitor of Afghanistan in connection with his business and it had come on record that near the place of occurrence, a road/track leading to Afghanistan was available and missing person was familiar of that track/road leading to Afghanistan

Mere recovery of his jacket/coat hanging over the bridge near the place of occurrence could not be a reason and made basis to believe that missing person committed suicide, especially when prosecution witness of recovery of coat/jacket had disowned the recovery memo

When there were two probabilities, the probability which favours the accused will be accepted

In the present case, no evidence was available that missing person had died, then the weight would be given to the other possibility that missing person had gone to Afghanistan as the said possibility was favorable to the accused persons

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances.

Where case was of two versions, court was required to first analyse the prosecution case in order to ascertain its truthfulness or otherwise.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 496-A, 494 & 34-Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, marrying again during life time of husband or wife, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Case of two versions

Alleged abductee controverting allegations in the F.I.R.

Delay in lodging F.I.R.

Effect

Allegation against the accused persons was that they abducted complainant's sister/alleged abductee for illicit purposes and for marrying her to the co-accused

Complainant also alleged that his sister/alleged abductee was already married at the time of her alleged abduction

Complainant was immediately informed about the alleged offence but he lodged the report with the police after an unexplained delay of three days, which indicated that F.I.R. had been recorded after deliberation and consultation

Alleged abductee recorded her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C before the Magistrate, wherein she categorically denied the allegations in the F.I.R. and stated that she being 'sui juris', left her home of her own accord and contracted marriage with co-accused with her own sweet will; that prior to her marriage with co-accused, she had not remained in Nikah with anybody, and that she had produced a valid Nikahnama before the police

Alleged abductee had also filed a suit in the Family Court for jactitation of marriage against the person who her family claimed to be her husband

Present case was of two versions, one given by the complainant in the F.I.R. and other advanced by the alleged abductee

Such divergent version of alleged abductee was sufficient to entitle the accused persons for bail on grounds of further inquiry

Person who claimed to be husband of alleged abductee never came forward for registration of case against alleged abductee or co-accused

Question of previous Nikah of alleged abductee had to be decided by the Family Court, but presently alleged abductee was living happily with the co-accused

Alleged abductee was a 'sui juris' girl and had selected her life partner

No allegation of abetment or instigation existed against accused persons

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused persons were admitted to bail accordingly.

Accused himself received injuries during the occurrence and had also filed a private complaint, wherein the complainant party had been summoned to face trial

Present case was a case of two versions, and question as to which of the versions was correct, would be seen at trial after appraisal of evidence led by the parties

Investigation of the case was complete

Accused was a previous non-convict

No chance existed of an early conclusion of trial in near future

Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt

Accused was allowed bail accordingly.

Court should not exercise discretion in favour of accused merely on the ground that case contained two versions, rather the court should rely upon other material brought on record by the prosecution including F.I.R., statement of complainant under section 161, Cr.P.C as well as incriminating and circumstantial evidence for tentative assessment whether the accused was involved in the commission of the offence or not.

Complainant lodged F.I.R. against accused persons but during investigation police found all of them to be innocent and submitted challan against two co-accused persons declaring them to be the actual culprits

Subsequently complainant party, dissatisfied with police investigation, lodged private complaint against accused persons and also filed affidavits in favour of co-accused persons in the challan case, declaring them as innocent

Trial Court stopped proceedings in challan case and proceedings in private complaint were taken up and consequently accused persons were summoned

Accused persons filed application before Trial Court to stop proceedings in the private complaint and to initiate proceedings in the challan case, but same was dismissed

Validity

Case was of two versions

Police while discarding complainant's version as set forth in the F.I.R., introduced new culprits comprising of two co-accused persons with a new set of witnesses

Complaint case was to be taken up first in such circumstances

No legal infirmity was found in the order passed by the Trial Court

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Accused allegedly raised a lalkara and held the accused in his hand, whereafter co-accused persons gave hatchet and stick blows to the deceased

F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of about six hours

Accused was admittedly empty handed

Cross-version case was already under investigation

Accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. were also injured during the occurrence and they were medically examined on the same day-Injuries sustained by accused persons were not mentioned by the complainant

Case was of two versions and it would be determined only after recording evidence and appraisal thereof as to who had in fact launched the aggression

Accused was no more required for further investigation

Although charge had been framed but statement of even a single witness had not been recorded so far

Case was one of further inquiry

High Court allowed bail to the accused with the observation that allegation of raising 'lalkara' and holding someone in the arms was usually levelled in our society by throwing a wider net, therefore, such accusation should always be scrutinized with care and caution.