BARKAT ALI Versus ZULFIQAR ALI

ORDER

This is an application for the cancellation of bail of Zu1fiqar Ali respondent granted to him by this Court on 21‑12‑1987.

2. The prosecution case was that a son of Arshad Ali deceased was mentally deranged and used to roam about naked. He was known as Sain Lok. On the day of occurrence i.e. 3‑6‑1987 he was roaming about in the street in front of the respondent's house. The latter asked his father Arshad Ali and his grandfather Barkat Ali petitioner to confine him inside his house otherwise he would throw him in the gutter. This led to an exchange of abuses between them. Zulfiqar respondent left for his house and shortly thereafter returned with a revolver and fired at Arshad Ali deceased hitting him in the abdomen and palm. On hearing alarm Mst. Husna sister of the respondent came out. One of the bullets hit her. The deceased was removed to the hospital where he died on 18‑7‑1987. He made a dying declaration in the hospital in the presence of doctors holding the respondent responsible for his injuries. During investigation revolver was also recovered at the instance of the respondent.

2. Bail was allowed to the respondent on the ground that it was a case of two versions and that Sakhawat Ali, real brother of the deceased had made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. giving an altogether different version. According to him his brother Liaqat Ali had fired at Zulfiqar Ali respondent which instead of hitting him hit his brother Arshad deceased and Mst. Husna real sister of respondent had also made a similar statement. On the basis of the said statement Liaqat Ali aforementioned was also arrested under section 307, P.P.C.

3. The cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that Sakhawat Ali real brother of the deceased on whose statement the respondent was admitted to bail had made another statement supporting the prosecution version and alleging that his former statement was the result of coercion. According to him Mst. Husna being real sister of the respondent had made a favourable statement to him in order to secure his release.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the respondent states that a private complaint has been filed by the respondent against Liaqat Ali under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Arshad Ali deceased and being a case of two versions the respondent is entitled to remain on bail. It is further stated that the statement now made by Sakhawat Ali is not voluntary and has been given by him under pressure. It is next submitted that since the challan has been submitted and the trial is about to commence the respondent would be prejudiced ii his bail is cancelled at this stage.

5. Admittedly Sakhawat Ali is not mentioned as a witness in the F.I.R. He has not been cited as a witness by the prosecution. According to the petitioner he had made a favourable statement to the respondent because he was his brother‑in‑law while Mst. Husna had done so because the respondent was her real brother. The case registered against Liaqat Ali has been got cancelled by the police. There is a dying declaration implicating the respondent in the case. He is the solitary accused charged with the murder of Arshad Ali deceased. There are three eye‑witnesses in the case. Sakhawat Ali who had made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. is not mentioned in the F.I.R. as an eye‑witness. Furthermore, he has resiled from the said statement. The case against Liaqat Ali brother of the deceased has since been got cancelled by the police. Nobody has yet been summoned on the complaint filed by the respondent.

In the circumstances discussed above, I do not find any justification for the respondent's remaining on bail. Accordingly, I accept the petition and cancel his bail.

S.G.D./B‑84/L Bail cancelled.