Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302 ,324 ,34,427

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 497(2)

SUMMARY Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S.497 (2) — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 34 — Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.5 — Bail, grant of — Further inquiry — Cross versions — General allegations — Single injury — Forensic inconsistency — Determination of aggressor — Scope. The petitioner, nominated in the F.I.R. along with co-accused for allegedly committing murder and attempted murder, sought post-arrest bail after its refusal by the Court below. The occurrence admittedly gave rise to cross versions from both sides arising out of the same transaction, each attributing the role of aggressor to the other, and both sides suffered casualties. The F.I.R. attributed only a general and collective allegation of indiscriminate firing to multiple accused persons without specifying whose shot hit the deceased. The medical evidence, however, revealed that the deceased sustained only a single firearm injury, thereby creating doubt regarding the specific role and individual liability of each accused. It was further noted that according to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, all recovered crime empties were fired from one and the same weapon, which prima facie contradicted the prosecution version regarding participation of multiple assailants armed with separate weapons. The record also showed that the petitioner himself sustained injuries in the same occurrence, while his brother lost his life, thus strengthening the existence of a counter version. Held: In cases involving cross versions arising out of the same occurrence, the question as to which party was the aggressor and which version is true can only be determined after recording of evidence during trial. Where allegations are general and non-specific, medical evidence shows single injury, and forensic evidence creates doubt regarding multiplicity of assailants, the matter squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry under S.497 (2), Cr.P.C. Heinousness of the offence alone is not sufficient to deny bail when the prosecution evidence itself calls for deeper scrutiny. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed and…