JAMAL Versus State
This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicant Jamal sought post-arrest bail after being implicated in an alleged police encounter alongside an absconder. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of subsequent statements by police witnesses under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exonerating him. The court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the material witnesses resiled from the initial FIR allegations and exonerated the applicant, indicating potential mala fides and false implication. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant, laying down the principle that contradictory statements of eyewitnesses casting serious doubt on the occurrence warrant the grant of bail pending trial.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when eyewitnesses resile from their initial statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and exonerate him under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does contradiction in police witnesses' statements regarding the occurrence bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- On 19-7-2004 the complainant A.S.-I. Akhtiar Ahmed received spy information that absconder Rasool Bux involved in Crime No.64 of 2000 was available at Link Road Kandiaro therefore the complainant along with his subordinate staff reached there where he found two persons present out of them one was absconder Rasool Bux and another was applicant Jamal who was alleged armed with gun. An encounter took place between police and said persons. The applicant was successful in running away from the place of the incident whereas Rasool Bux was arrested along with arms and ammunition. The complainant brought the accused and the property at the P.S. where he lodged the report.
2. The police started the investigation in which 161, Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Aves, Muhammad Ali, Allah Dad, Mohram Ali, who were in the police party were recorded in which they fully supported the contents of F.I.R. It further appears that on 2-8-2004 again 161, Cr.P.C. statements of all the above named witnesses were recorded in which they resiled from their earlier statements and they completely gave different story by alleging that no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. took place. They also did not implicate the present applicant. Thereafter on 23-8-2005 164, Cr.P.C. statements of all the above named witnesses were recorded by the Magistrate in which they supported their statements which were recorded on 2-8-2004 by exonerating the present applicant from the commission of this crime.
3. In these circumstances the learned State Counsel has no objection to the grant of bail.
4. From the above facts it appears that the incident as alleged by the complainant Akhtiar Ali appears to have not taken place but the applicant has been involved in this case falsely with mala fide intention. The said observation is supported by the statements of all the witnesses whose statements were recorded on 2-8-2004 under section 161, Cr. P. C. Their statements on oath under section 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded on 23-8-2004 in which they disowned the incident as alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R. and exonerated the applicant from the commission of this crime. As such the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently the bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 on furnishing solvent surety with P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the D.P.O., Naushahro Feroze for holding detailed enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against the delinquent officer under intimation to this Court. The process should be completed within a period of one month.
6. H.B.T./J-26/K Bail granted