Riaz Ahmed etc. vs The State etc.

Form No. HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Misc. No. 3275-B of 2026

Riaz Ahmad, etc. Vs. The State etc.

Sr. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or order/ order/ counsel, where necessary. proceedings. proceedings.

08.09.2026 Mr. Sher Muhammad Advocate with petitioners in Crl.Misc.3275-B of 2026.

Mr. Muhammad Rashid Khan Balouch, Advocate with petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.3366-B of 2026. Mr. Najeeb Ullah Jatoi, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab alongwith Shabbir ASI.

This order will dispose of above titled bail petition filed by Riaz Ahmed and Mukhtiar Ahmed, petitioners as well as connected Crl.Misc.No.3366-B of 2026 filed by Saeed Ahmad (petitioner) in case FIR No.478/2026 dated 11.06.2026, offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 447, 511, 506- B, 148, 149 P.P.C. and cross-version for offences under Sections 337-F(vi), 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-L(2) and 34 P.P.C. respectively registered at police station Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar.

2.Precisely, the facts which formed basis of criminal miscellaneous No.3275-B of 2026 are that on 11.06.2026 at about 09:00 a.m, the petitioners while armed with their respective weapons attacked upon the complainant’s party and injured them.

3.Arguments heard, record perused.

4.It is discernible from the perusal of record that case has its roots in an incident, which took place on 11.06.2026 at about 09:00 a.m. Regarding this incident,

both sides came forward with their respective versions of having been assaulted by their adversaries. Father of the petitioner Muhammad Rafique (petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.3366-B/2026) initially got registered FIR No.478/2026 with the claim of becoming victim to the assault of their opponents, which culminated in injuries. On the other hand, Riaz Ahmad (respondent No.2 in Crl. Misc. No.3366-B/2026) got registered a cross-version through which he took the stance that his opponents attacked him, which resulted in injuries.

5.It is observed from record that the incident took place in an open place having no boundary wall, during which both the sides came face to face with each other having non-conventional weapons with them, through which they inflicted injuries to their adversaries. Each version put forth by both the sides is prima facie supported by the medico legal certificates of the injured persons. Neither the police nor this Court is in a position to determine with certainty at this early stage that the aggression was started by whom. Even otherwise, a consensus developed for the acceptance of both the petitions.

6.Last but not the least, it is observed that for the time being, the case from its very genesis is of two versions and it is now settled principle that in the absence of some exceptional circumstances, in such cases accused are entitled to bail as the question of initiation of aggression can only be determined by the trial court. On the same principle, pre-arrest bail was granted to accused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCMR 1137), Syed Darbar Ali Shah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 879) and Ghulam Abbas v. The State and

others (2016 SCMR 2048) and “Khizar Hayat v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 1605), the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

Apart from this, it is a case of cross version. The petitioner in his cross-version has alleged that complainant party was aggressor because petitioner had right to enter into the housing society being the owner of the same. In cases of counter versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the FIR and the other given by the opposite party, bail is granted as a rule on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that the question as to which version is correct to be decided after recording of pro and contra evidence during the trial and also to ascertain which party was the aggressor or was aggressed upon and refusal of bail in such cases is an exception.

Further reliance is placed on case law reported as “Manan Ali and others v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another” (2026 SCMR 442), the relevant extract is reproduced as under:-

“It is well-settled exposition of law that the quintessence of further inquiry must have linkage with the outcome of the case for which a tentative estimation of the material on record is to be mulled over. The case of further inquiry proposes a tentative assessment which may create doubt which respect to the involvement of the accused in the crime. The prosecution, in order to make out a case for refusal of bail to an accused, is primarily supposed to place on record material on the basis of which he is believed to be involved in a non-bailable offence, but in absence of such material, the Court, for the purpose of releasing the accused on bail, instead of dilating upon the facts of the case in detail, can dispose of the matter by holding that his detention is unjustified or unreasonable. It is well settled that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage. Simultaneously, it is also well settled that the object of trial is to make an accused face the trial, not to punish an under-trial prisoner. The Investigation Officer is present in Court and submits that the challan has already been submitted in the Trial Court. Let the charge be framed by the Trial Court, and we expect that the Trial will be conducted expeditiously.”

7.For what has been discussed above, both petitions are allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide orders dated 17.08.2026 and 25.08.2026 respectively are confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of

Rs.100,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(SYED FARHAD ALI SHAH)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE

Subhani*