Cross case bail on less evidence on who was aggressor.
Cross case bail on less evidence on who was aggressor. Yahya Afridi, J.- There appears to be judicial consensus that the application of principles for the grant or refusal of bail in ‘cross-cases’ depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. This proposition can be illustrated by the ratio decidendi of the following cases: I. To constitute a cross-case, the mere assertion of a countercase is not enough. Courts are to tentatively assess that the parties, the venue, and the transaction prima facie led to the result of a single incident narrated differently by the opposing party. The rationale is that frivolous and false counter-cases, which can exaggeratedly be set up by the opposite party, do not gain an advantage of the general rule and benefits arising out of a counter-case.1 II. In cases of counter versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the F.I.R., and the other given by the opposite party, bail in appropriate cases is
