GHULAM HASSAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 392, 411, and 401 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an armed robbery where cash and ornaments were stolen. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a subsequent statement by the complainant before a Magistrate claiming the petitioner was not the actual culprit. The Court observed that the complainant had previously supported the prosecution, and the sudden change in stance, coupled with the filing of an affidavit, suggested potential tampering with prosecution evidence. Furthermore, the Court noted that incriminating evidence, specifically cash and gold ornaments, had been recovered from the petitioner during the investigation. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification for granting bail at this stage. The Court dismissed the application, noting that since the trial court had been directed to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe, the petitioner could file a fresh bail application if that deadline was not met. The principle established is that a complainant's retraction, when indicative of evidence tampering, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially when recovery of stolen property is established.
- Does a complainant's statement exonerating the accused automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Can an affidavit filed by a complainant be disregarded if it suggests tampering with prosecution evidence?
- Is the recovery of stolen property a relevant factor in denying post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 401, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.49 of 2002 registered on 5-2-2002 in Police Station Jauharabad, District Khushab under sections 392, 411 and 401, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Ashraf Jamil Mumtaz, complainant regarding an occurrence which had taken place on 4-2-2002 at 10-15 p.m. And in the course of which three unknown culprits had entered his house and had forcibly taken along the amount of Rs.30,000 in cash and also ornaments.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had appeared in the Court of learned Magistrate Section 30, Khushab on 13-9-2004 and had made a statement that Ghulam Hassan is not the actual culprit.
5. From the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 18-9-2004 it appears that previously the complainant had been supporting the case of the prosecution against the petitioner and the first bail application of the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28-8-2004. The filing of the affidavit by the complainant in the Court of the learned trial Judge or before the learned Additional Sessions Judge merely indicates that the accused/petitioner had tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. In any way, as a direction has already been issued to the learned trial Court by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to conclude the trial within a period of two months and as the said period is about to expire, the petitioner shall have the right to file a fresh bail application in case the trial is not concluded within the said period. But at this stage, in a case of this nature, there is hardly any justification for the grant of bail to the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that in the course of investigation an amount of Rs.26,000 in cash and 9-1/2 grams of gold ornaments were recovered from the petitioner on 26-3-2004. Under the circumstances, this bail application. Is without any basis and the same is accordingly dismissed.