ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDEARBAD
Cr. Bail. Appl. No.687 of 2009
Date ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
FOR HEARING
10.12.2009
Mr. Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio Advocate for the applicants Ahmed and Muhammad Achar.
Syed Meeral Shah DPG for the State.
=
It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are counter versions as a case under crime No.175/2009 has been registered against the complainant party by Manthar Ali, brother of applicant No.1. Learned counsel has placed on record a copy of FIR in Cr.No.175/2009. He contended that there are general allegations against seven persons including present applicants and no specific role is attributed to the applicants/accused. He further contended that so for the injuries allegedly received at the hands of applicants are concerned, all the injuries are bailable except one injury which has been declared as Shujah-e-Madiah falling u/s 337 A(ii) PPC and same is punishable upto five years. Learned counsel further pointed out that the some persons from the applicants side have received injuries at the hands of complainant party, therefore, it is yet to be determined which party was aggressor. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Haji Talib and 4 others Vs. The Sate reported in 2003 P Cr. L J 434.
Conversely, Syed Meeral Shah D.P.G for the State half heartedly opposed the bail application stating that the names of the applicants find place in the FIR and no malafide has been alleged on the part of complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly there are counter versions arising out of same occurrence, one is given by complainant party in crime No.174/2009 and other version by the applicants side vide crime No.175/2009. Both the parties have received injuries at the hands of each other. There are general allegations against all the accused and no specific role is attributed to the applicants. Both the parties have concealed the real facts. Even there is settled law as Honourable Supreme Court has held in the case of Shoib Mehmood Butt and 3 others Vs. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others, 1996 S C M R 1845 that when there are counter cases arising out of same occurrence one given by complainant and other by accused then it becomes a case of further inquiry and accused would be entitled for bail. The relevant placitum of said judgment is reproduced 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 inquiry 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. In the case of Fazal Muhammad V. Ali Ahmad (1976 SCMR 391) in cross cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground that there was probability of counter versions being true as some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one accused. It was held by this court that in such circumstances the High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted. In the same context, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shaiqan V. Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCMR 682).
In view of the dictum laid down by their lordships in above case and in the case of Haji Talib (supra), I am of the considered view that the case of the applicants requires further inquiry as envisaged in section 497 (2) Cr.P.C
The applicants were admitted on interim pre arrest bail vide order dated 17.11.2009 and their bail is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
The applicants/accused are directed to attend the trial court to face their trial.
The Cr. Bail Application No.687 of 2009 stands disposed of.
JUDGE
A.K