GHULAM RASOOL Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, who was charged under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his bail plea by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the filing of affidavits of 'no-objection' by the complainant and a prosecution witness, without exonerating the accused of the crime, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail. The court held that the mere expression of 'no-objection' by witnesses, who are not the legal heirs of the deceased, does not equate to an exoneration or a compromise that would entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role in a heinous crime. The court distinguished the present case from precedents where witnesses had explicitly stated the accused was innocent or not involved. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, affirming that such affidavits do not create a case of further inquiry under the circumstances.
- Does a 'no-objection' affidavit from a complainant or witness, without exonerating the accused, constitute sufficient grounds for bail in a murder case?
- Can an accused be granted bail solely on the basis of a no-objection statement when they are nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role?
- Is a case of 'further inquiry' established when witnesses merely state they have no objection to bail rather than declaring the accused innocent?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
AQEE L. AHMED ABBASI, J .---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order passed by learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Criminal Bail Application No.98 of 2010, Crime No.86 of 2008, under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Lakhi Gate, Shikarpur, whereby the present applicant/accused has been declined the bail vide order dated 12-11-2010, the applicant/accused has approached this Court seeking bail.
2. Along with his bail application, the applicant/accused has filed affidavits of no-objection of one Mazzhar Ali son of Hussain Bux, the complainant, and Barkat Ali son of Kamal, the prosecution witness, in the instant case.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that since the applicant/accused has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, he would press the instant bail application in view of affidavits of no-objection filed by the complainant .and prosecution witness. According to the learned Counsel, since the main prosecution witnesses i.e., the complainant and another eye-witness have extended their no objection, the applicant/accused is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja N. The State, reported as 1991 SCMR 111 and case of Muhammad Najeeb v. The State, reported as 2009 SCMR 448.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail, on the ground that since the applicant/ accused has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and the crime is heinous one, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the applicant/ accused has been nominated in the. F.I.R. with specific role for having fired with. T.T. Pistol at deceased Muhammad Panjal, who later-on died. There are eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and the matter is proceeding before the learned trial Court. As regards affidavits of the complainant and eye-witness, it appears that the complainant and the eye-witness have not exonerated the applicant from the alleged crime and they have only extended their no objection if the applicant is admitted to bail. It further appears that the complainant and the prosecution witness are not the legal heirs of the deceased.
7. In the reported case of Muhammad Nawaz, alias Najja (supra), the prosecution witnesses appeared in Court and filed their affidavits to the effect that accused was not implicated in the occurrence. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was admitted to bail.
8. Similarly, in the case of Muhammad Najeeb (supra), the complainant had initially nominated the accused in the F.I.R., but later on through an affidavit he had expressed his satisfaction with regard to the innocence of the accused and further stated that he did not want to proceed with the matter. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it appears to be a case of further enquiry.
9. Since, in the instant case, there is no such affidavit of the complainant or the eye-witness, exonerating the applicant/accused from the commission of instant crime, therefore, reliance by the learned Counsel for the applicant on the above referred cases is misconceived and of no avail. Accordingly, I do not fund any merits in the instant bail application, which is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./G-13/K Bail refused.