Cross-cases

Record showed that cross cases were registered by both the parties against each other and the persons from both the sides received injuries caused due to firing or inflicting blows of dagger/knife

In present case deceased had died allegedly by the firing of the one of the members of accused party

Both the occurrences had taken place within 45 minutes, hence it was yet to be determined as to which party was the aggressor and which party was the victim of aggression

Said fact could only be ascertained during trial

Accused nominated in the FIR had already been granted bail, thus, on the rule of consistency the accused was entitled to grant of bail

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Allegation against the petitioner and eleven other accused persons was that they made firing which resulted into death of brother of complainant whereas two persons received bullet injuries

Reported incidents in the cross-cases had similarity as to parties, the occurrence, the date and place, and almost the same time had been mentioned in the both counter-version cases, therefore, it could not be ascertained at the bail stage as to which version was true

Question as to who was the aggressor and who had been aggressed upon had yet to be determined by the Trial Court

Counsel for both sides had no objection if petitioner was granted bail

Specific role could not be ascertained against the petitioner which required further inquiry in terms of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Complainant had no objection in granting bail to accused

Petitioner was granted bail, in circumstances.

Ss. 497 & 498 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/ 148/149-Bail-Murder-Cross-case High, Court's order refusing bail to petitioners offering from no legal infirmity such as requiring interference by Supreme Court - Mere fact that in cross-case persons charged for having caused injuries have been released on bail-Held, no ground for releasing petitioners on bail particularly when allegations against them are more serious-Leave to appeal refused-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

Cross-cases-Trial Judge deciding case in hand on basis of testimony appearing in cross-case-Action of trial Judge, held, not only entirely illegal but also not curable under S. 537 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Impugned judgment of High Court in so far as it concerns refusal to direct retrial, held further, not wrong in view of circumstances of case and keeping in view part played by both sides resulting in injuries to both parties.-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),' S. 534.

[Cross-cases-Retrial].

Disposal of two cross-cases by one judgment not illegal-Care muss, however, be taken that each case is disposed of separately on material on its record without reference to material on record of other case

(Obiter).