Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 751

MUNIR AHMED- vs STATE and another

CitationPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 751
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No. 2044-B of 2016
Date2016-10-15
Judge(s)Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan
ResultBail allowed.

ORDER

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner namely Munir Ahmed seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 200/2016 dated 30.07.2016, offences under Sections 337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/34, PPC, registered at Police Station Shaker Fareed, District Bahawalnagar on the complaint of Muhammad Iqbal (complainant).

2. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, on 23.07.2016, at about 5.45 p.m, a quarrel took place between the petitioner and the complainant party, whereupon the petitioner inflicted a brick blow on the head of Muhammad Iqbal (complainant), whereas his co-accused namely Amir Shafizad, inflicted a brick blow, which landed above the right ear of the complainant and his co-accused namely Mst. Baigan gave fists and slap blows to the complainant.

2. 3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. 4.It is a case of two versions. It is claim of the petitioner that infact he was attacked by the complainant party of this case. The medico legal report of the petitioner is also available on the record, according to which the petitioner sustained two injuries and as per his x-ray report, the bone of left arm of the petitioner was found to be t actured and the same was declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashimah to be punishable under Section 337-F(v), PPC. Although the initial Medical Officer has mentioned in the relevant column of the medico legal report of the petitioner that possibility of accidental injury of the petitioner cannot be ruled out but the said report was challenged before the Medical Board and according to the final report, furnished by the Medical Board, the abovementioned findings of the initial Medical Officer regarding possibility of receiving of injury by the petitioner during an accident were set aside and it was noted that the aforementioned findings were given by the initial Medical Officer without any solid reason/evidence. Although the duration of the injury was given by the initial Medical Officer to be within four to six days but the Medical Board has opined as under: "According to FIR No. 20012016 lodged by opposite party Mr. Muhammad Muneer was main accused and he seriously injured to opposite which is not possible for a person who have a long bone fracture of forearm. The police investigate this matter on circumstantial evidence." Admittedly the abovementioned findings of the Medical Board regarding the story narrated in the instant FIR have not been challenged any further by the complainant. As it is a case of cross- versions and the petitioner himself sustained injuries during the occurrence, therefore, it is difficult to determine at this stage that as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon, hence a case for grant if pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out in this case. Reference in this context may be made to the cases reported as "Hamza Ali Hamza and others vs. The State" (2010 SCM R 1219) & "Syed Darbar Ali Shah and others vs. The State" (2015 SCM R 879). Moreover, as per contents of the FIR, the petitioner pelted/threw brick bat upon the complainant and brick bat, if any, must be available at the place of occurrence. Nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

4. Reference in this context may be made to the case of "Khalid Mehmood and others vs. The State and others" (2011 SCM R 1719). Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case, due to the cross version, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

5. 5.Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, the instant petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred Thousand only) with one surer in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court 6.It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial Court.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch