ABDUL LATEEF vs ASHFAQ and anothers
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 497(5) read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-trial bail granted to the accused in relation to an FIR registered under Sections 365-B and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled due to alleged misuse of liberty, threats extended to the complainant, and initial contradictions in statements. The Sindh High Court held that the application lacked merit, noting that inconsistencies between the FIR and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alongside a freewill affidavit executed by the sui juris victim, supported the exercise of discretion in granting bail, and that allegations of intimidation remained unsubstantiated. The court laid down the principle that bail already granted will not be interfered with or cancelled absent strong, substantiated grounds such as proven misuse of concession or glaring illegality in the original order.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without substantiated allegations of misuse or intimidation?
- Do material inconsistencies between the FIR and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the refusal or cancellation of bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of a freewill affidavit executed by a sui juris woman in cases involving charges of abduction and marriage?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Through this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Cancellation of bail has been sought, which was granted by this Court in terms of order dated 14- 9-2011 in the F.I.R No,229 of 2011, under sections 365-B and 34, P.P.C. Of Police Station New Karachi Industrial Area.
3. I. In a nutshell the facts deducible from the F.I.R are that the accused/ respondent No,1 contracted marriage with Rabia, daughter of the applicant/ complainant and she also executed; freewill affidavit on 11-6-2011 she being sui juries. It appears that after such marriage, present F.I.R was registered and the accused/ respondent No,1 was arrested. Thereafter Rabia, wife of the accused/respondent No,1, recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., wherein she altogether stated a different story than what was narrated by the complainant himself in the F.I.R..
4. II. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that after obtaining bail the respondent No,1 is misusing the same and is extending threats to the complainant. In this regard he relied upon the case of Nazar Masih v. Yagoob Masih and others reported as 2002 PCr.LJ 662 and asserted that the bail be cancelled. It was also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of grant of bail on 14-9-2011 this court did not appreciate the fact that the daughter of complainant namely Rabia had stated that she was married to the respondent. No,1 .After being intoxicated and she signed Nikahnama and executed freewill affidavit in such state of intoxication. III. Heard learned counsel. It would be evident.That the complainant had stated that accused/respondent No,1 abducted and married Rabia, however Rabia implicated as many as six other persons namely the respondent No,1, Shahzad, Taja, Altaf Abro and mother and father of the respondent No,1. Thereafter in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Recorded after three days Rabia stated altogether a different story and only implicated the respondent No,1, his father and mother than what was stated in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Looking at these inconsistencies viz contradiction in the F.I.R., 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Statements and also appreciating that prima facie Rabia got married with the accused/respondent No,1 after executing freewill affidavit dated 11-6-2011 and that she thereafter having been taken by her parents got intimidated and kept changing her statement and the bail was granted by exercising discretion. It is difficult to believe that the affidavit of freewill was executed in state of intoxication as it was before the court concerned where she was also examined by such court. As far as the allegation of intimidation is concerned, nothing was brought on record to substantiate the same and it seems that allegation for the sake of it has been raised.
5. In such view of the matter the case of Nazar Masih was not applicable. Looking at such aspects of the matter the bail that was granted, require to interference and, therefore, this application for cancellation is found to be meritless and is hereby dismissed.