Fida Hussain and another vs Basharat Hussain and 2 others
This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications: one seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Sartaj Hussain, and another seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to his co-accused, Basharat Hussain and Manzoor Hussain, in connection with an FIR registered for the alleged kidnapping of a minor girl, Mst. Samia. The core legal question was whether, given the contradictory statements provided by the alleged victim regarding the circumstances of her disappearance, the petitioner was entitled to bail and whether the bail granted to his co-accused should be cancelled. The Court held that the victim’s conflicting statements—initially implicating a third party and later implicating the petitioner and his brothers—created significant doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the Court determined that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court granted bail to the petitioner and dismissed the application for cancellation of bail for the co-accused. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on contradictory statements by the victim, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail to the accused.
- Does the existence of contradictory statements by the victim regarding the commission of an offense constitute grounds for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the prosecution's case relies on inconsistent statements from the alleged victim?
- Are there sufficient grounds to cancel bail when the victim's subsequent statement implicating the accused contradicts their initial version of events?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Yar MUHAMMAD, J.---Through this single order, I propose to dispose of Cr. Misc. application No 150/2014 and Cr. Misc. No 175/2014 as both the petitions have arisen from same criminal case having same background and facts.
2. The background of these petitions as disclosed in FIR No 27/2014 registered on 10-8-2014 with Police Station Yasin at the instance of complainant Akbar Hussain son of Hazrat Saeed are that on the given date at about 9:00 a.m. the complainant while appearing before SHO of the Police Station preferred an application saying that during intervening night of 8-8-2014 and 9-8-2014 his niece Samia aged about 14 to 15 years was present in the house along with other ladies whereas he had proceeded to Gupis to attend the Court in connection with a case that in the meantime he was informed that Mst. Samia daughter of Fida Hussain was sleeping in the house along with other ladies that at about 4:00 a.m. she escaped from the house and has disappeared. On this information, the complainant went back to Yasin and searched Sarnia but in vain. It has been stated in the FIR that engagement of Mst. Samia was effected with one Jafar some six months ago.
On the basis of above information the instant case was registered against unknown persons.
3. The petitioner and his two brothers namely Manzoor Hussain and Basharat Hussain who are accused in this case firstly preferred application for bail to learned Judicial Magistrate Gupis but in vain. The petitioner and the co-accused then knocked the door of learned Sessions Judge Ghizer for same relief and the learned Sessions Judge through his order dated 19-9-2014 accepted the application to the extent of co-accused Basharat Hussain and Manzoor Hussain and released them on bail whereas the application for /bail to the extent of petitioner Sartaj Hussain was declined hence this application for same relief.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties at length and also have gone through the record of the case particularly the footnote of the FIR written by the 1.0. on the basis of the statement made before him by Mst. Samia and her subsequent statement made on 16-8-2014 vide which the said Samia has advanced two different versions about her escaping from the house of her parents.
According to her first statement Mst. Samia developed terms with one Shakir through telephone and on 9-8-2014 at about 2.00 a.m., the said Shakir contacted her on mobile and told that he is coming with a vehicle to take her and advised to be ready to proceed with him so that they will celebrate marriage going in a safe place. She came out from her house and found Shakir near her home who took her to the roadside where a white car was parked in which two unknown persons with short beard were sitting in the car. They also boarded her on the car and proceeded towards Phander side and took her to village Gulakhmoli where they left her helpless and disappeared.
5. According to this statement Mst. Samia was not kidnapped by anyone rather she eloped (sic) with her lover Shakir and two other persons. After discovery of Mst. Samia the police shifted her from Phander to Yasin where she on 16-8-2014, made another statement stating that she was induced by the petitioner of petition No. 175/2014 namely Sartaj and his two brothers Basharat Hussain and Manzoor Hussain who are respondents in Cr. Misc. Application No. 150/2014 filed for cancellation of their bail extended by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghizer.
6. Initially, Mst. Samia implicated three persons out of whom she knows Shakir who took her from her house to Gulakhmoli and left her there helpless but the girl after her discovery by the local police and relatives she made a supplementary statement on 16-8-2014 exonerating the persons who were implicated by her in the case rather implicated the petitioner Sartaj and his brothers Basharat and Manzoor.
7. While making two different statements, Mst. Samia has changed the entire complex of the prosecution case making the case one of further inquiry. Which statement of Mst. Samia out of two is correct same will be determined at trial but for this stage it is a fit case for the enlargement of the petitioner Sartaj on bail, consequently there is no ground and reason to recall the bail facility extended to respondents-1 and 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 150/2014.
8. In the result, the Cr. Misc. No. 175/2014 titled Sartaj Hussain v. The State is accepted and Sartaj s/o Muhabbat Ali is released on bail subject to his furnishing Personal bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000 with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate on duty at Gahkuch. Consequently, the Cr. Misc. No. 150/2014 titled Fida Hussain v.
Basharat Hussain etc filed by the complainant for the cancellation of bail extended by Sessions Judge Ghizer to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stand dismissed as merit less.
9. A copy of this order be placed on both the files.