SANAULLAH AND 3 Others vs The STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sanaullah and three others, challenging the High Court's order dated 3-3-1982, which dismissed their post-arrest bail application in a criminal case involving offences under sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 365, 451, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the retraction of an eye-witness by way of an affidavit constitutes sufficient ground for granting bail when another injured eye-witness, the complainant himself, supports the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because the injured complainant, who sustained ten injuries, remains an available eye-witness to support the prosecution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that an affidavit by a single witness cannot override the direct testimony and existence of an injured complainant implicating the accused in a heinous crime.
- Does the retraction of an eye-witness by affidavit warrant the grant of bail when an injured complainant supports the prosecution case?
- Whether bail should be refused to accused persons facing trial under charges including murder and attempted murder when direct incriminating evidence exists?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 451, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN. J.-Through this petition Sanaullah, Mansha, Ata Ullah and Khan, petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the dismissal of their bail application by the High Court vide order dated 3-3-1982. They are accused, inter alia, for offence under section 148/ 302/307/324/365/ 451/149, P. P. C. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Ilyas (P. W.) who also suffered as many as 10 injuries during the incident out of which 3 were incised wounds. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition was that the only witness mentioned in the F.I.R. Namely, Nasrullah (P. W.) has filed an affidavit that he had not seen the occurrence. Even if it be assumed that he had not seen the occurrence it is admitted that Muhammad Ilyas, the complainant in the ease, who is also an eye-witness, would support the prosecution case.
Cited by 9 cases
- Mst. SHAFEEN AKHTAR vs Malik MUMRAIZ and others 2014 P Cr. L J 1415
- MUNAWAR ALI Versus THE STATE 2004 MLD 1528
- HABIB MEHMOOD Versus BILQEES FATIMA 1997 PCRLJ 390
- ANWAR vs THE STATE 1991 P Cr. L J 732
- SHAHMIR and others vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1011
- THE STATE vs HAJJAN And Another 1986 P Cr. L J 93
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL And ANOTHER vs THE STATE---Opponent 1986 P Cr. L J 462
- ALI GUL And 3 Others vs THE STATE---Opponent 1986 P Cr. L J 433
- Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS 1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 48