Through this petition filed in terms of Section 497 Cr.P.C., Abdul Wakeel (petitioner) has prayed for the grant of post-arrest bail in cross-version recorded vide Entry/Rappat No.2/2020 dated 29.04.2020 under Sections 302,324,148 & 149 PPC in FIR No.280/2020 dated 25.04.2020 registered under Sections 324,148 & 149 PPC at Police Station Makhdoom Rasheed, Multan.
2. Precisely stated the case of prosecution as it gleans from the cross version is to the effect that one Dr. Atta Muhammad purchased agricultural land on the canal bank in Basti Manak and was constructing cattle-shed thereupon; that Abdul Wakeel (petitioner) and his co-accused used to bring their cattle on the canal and partially damaged one of its bank; that Dr. Atta Muhammad moved an application, before SHO P.S. Makhdoom Rasheed and Irrigation Department, for the afore-mentioned misdeeds of the petitioner and his co-accused; that on 25.04.2020 at about 1:00 p.m. Atta Muhammad was busy in harvesting his wheat crop when suddenly petitioner along with eighteen others emerged on the scene while armed with different weapons; that firstly the assailants resorted to aerial firing and then started pelting stones and bricks upon the comp lainant-side; that the police also reached the place after receipt of information through rescue "15"; that Zeeshan, Arslan, Maqbool, Fauji Iqbal and petitioner inflicted club blows on the face and head of Muhammad Asghar; that thereafter Bilal inflicted successive iron blows on the leg of Muhammad Asghar; that Saeed inflicted iron rod blow on the left shoulder of Wazeer Ahmad, whereas Sheraz inflicted iron rod blow on his left eye and that Faheem also inflicted a club blow on the face of Wazeer and broke his teeth. The aggression of accused ended with the death of Muhammad Asghar (deceased) and multiple injuries to W azeer Ahmed (PW).
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. From the perusal of record, it unfolds that the incident which formed basis of the instant case occurred on 23.04.2020 at about 12:30 p.m. during which both sides came face to face with each other and inflicted injuries upon their adversaries. On one hand, Iftikhar Ahmad got registered FIR No.280/2020 alleging therein that Dr. Atta Muhammad and his cronies resorted to aggression and inflicted firearm injuries on Tariq, Sheraz and Asif (injured).
On the other hand, Dr. Atta Muhammad through his written application got registered a cross-version claiming therein that petitioner and eighteen of his co-accused mounted an attack, during which one Muhammad Asghar lost his life after the receipt of multiple blunt traumas and another person, namely , Wazeer Ahmad got injured. The tale of crime put forth by both sides is supported from respective medical reports.
5. The facts set out above unveil that the case in hand is of two versions wherein both sides inflicted injuries upon their opponents without any impunity . Admittedly the crime scene is situated adjacent to the land of Dr. Atta Muhammad (complainant of cross-versio n) but the fact remains that he and his cronies are ascribed the role of inflicting firearm injuries to three of their adversaries, namely , Tariq, Sheraz and Asif. So far as, Abdul Wakeel (petitioner) is concerned, he is an aged person and has been implicated in the case along with three sons, namely , Zeeshan, Arshad and Sheraz while being saddled with the accusation of inflicting a club blow on the face of Muhammad Asghar (deceased). It is found to be of immense importance to mention here that besides Abdul Wakeel (petitioner), six others are also ascribed the role of inflicting blunt traumas, through club blows, on the face of Muhammad Asghar (deceased).
6. In the wake of two versions case, the question arises that whether the injuries to Muhammad Asghar (deceased) and Wazeer Ahmed (injured) were cause d in consequence of aggression or as retribution. Needless to mention here that such an aspect can only be determined by the trial court after an in-depth evaluation of both versions and witnesses produced in support thereof. For the foregoing reasons, the cases of two versions are generally regarded appropriate for the grant of post-arrest bail more importantly , when the accused seeking such remedy is not ascribed some exceptional aggression. In support of afore-mentioned view this Court is guided from the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in case reported as Shoaib Mehmood Butt v.
Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others ( 1996 SCMR 1845 ) which is as under:- "In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite-party case law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. In such cases normally , bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of counter-versions, normally , plea of private defence is taken giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed."
If any further reference in this regard is needed that can be made to the case reported as Muhammad Shahzad Siddique v . The State and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 58).
7. There is yet another aspect discernible from record and is sufficient to bring the case of petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry . As is evident from the record three co-assailants of the petitioner , namely , Tariq, Sheraz and Asif received firearm traumas over their persons and in support thereof respective MLCs are also available on record. Neither in the cross-version nor in the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. any explanation is put forth as to how the afore-cited three persons received firearm injuries. From the suppression of injuries of these three persons, a prima facie conclusion can be drawn that both sides have not set out in their respective versions the actual facts of the case. The suppression of injuries to the accused persons is a factor which has persuaded this Court to lean in favour of petitioner for the grant of post-arrest bail. In this respect, reliance is placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Zahid Umar v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 1246 ) wherein after noticing the suppressing of injuries on the person of an accused the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "Chances of suppression of real facts by both the parties cannot be ruled out. However it is for the learned trial Court to determine, after elaborate evaluation of the evidence to be recorded by it, as to which party was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon. Moreover , according to learned Additiona l Prosecutor General, challan in both the cases i.e. the instant FIR and the cross version has already been submitted in the trial Court. In this backdrop the case of the present petitioner , in the peculiar circumstances of the case, becomes one of further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure."
On the same subject, further reference can be made to the cases titled as Faisal Khan and 3 others v. The State and another (2017 MLD 1220 ), Ahmed Hussain v. The State and another (2016 YLR 1503 ), Khadim Hussain and others v. The State and others (2015 MLD 543), Ramzan alias Jan Qazi v. The State and another (2013 YLR 1307 ) and Muhammad Aamir v . The State (2010 PCrLJ 512).
8. In the light of above discussion, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.