ZAHOOR ALAM Versus THE STATE and 2 others
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondents/accused in a theft case. The complainant alleged that the accused had stolen his motorcycle and subsequently misused their liberty by threatening the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether the grounds presented for bail cancellation—specifically the allegations of threats and intimidation—were sufficient to warrant the revocation of bail. The Court held that the allegations of threats were vague, stereotypical, and lacked specific details regarding time, place, or circumstances. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant failed to file an affidavit in support of his claims, and the affidavit provided by a prosecution witness was insufficient, especially given the existing enmity and litigation between that witness and the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, establishing the principle that bail cancellation requires concrete, specific evidence of misuse of liberty rather than general, unsubstantiated allegations.
- Is a general allegation of threats sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the existence of prior litigation and enmity between a prosecution witness and the accused undermine the credibility of allegations made in support of a bail cancellation application?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
The applicant/complainant Zahoor Alam has filed present application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of bail granted to respondents/accused Muhammad Sarwar and Mukhtiar Ahmed alias Suri by this Court.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-11-1997 the complainant parked his motorcycle near the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, and he went inside the Court. When he came out at about 10-00 a.m. He found motorcycle missing. On enquiry P. Ws. Ghazi Khan, Riaz Ahmed and Muhammad Aslam Bhatti informed him that applicants along with one Muhammad Rasheed alias Nika had taken away his motorcycle. Thereafter, the complainant went to applicant Muhammad Sarwar and on enquiry he assured him that his motorcycle would be returned to him within 2/3 days. The complainant was kept on false hopes and ultimately applicants/accused refuses to return the motorcycle to him. He lodged the present F . I .R .
3.I have heard Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Memon, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State as well as Mr. Jawaid Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused 2 and 3. The latter i,e,, counsel for the State and the counsel for the respondents/accused have opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail. I have perused the material placed on record.
4.The place of the applicant/ complainant that after grant of bail the respondents/accused 2 and 3 misused their liberty and issued threats of dire consequences to the applicant/complainant and prosecution witnesses is misconceived.
5.The perusal of record shows that applicant/complainant has not filed any affidavit in support of his contention. However, affidavit of prosecution witness Riaz Ahmed has been filed in support of plea for bail cancellation. It is stated in the said affidavit that respondents/accused threatened him that if he deposed against them he will not be spared and they also fought with him. No date, time and place where such threats were given or fighting with him took place has been mentioned in the affidavit. The allegations are of general nature and they are of stereo type. The allegations levelled by the applicant/complainant and P.W. Riaz Ahmed have been controverted by the respondents/ accused through counter-affidavits and no rejoinder has been filed by the applicant/ complainant though copy of the counter-affidavit was Supplied to him well in advance.
6.The record further shows that P.W. Riaz Ahmed is also on inimical terms and locked in litigation with respondent/accused. His direct complaint under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 etc., is sub judice before the Court.
7.The upshot of the above discussion is that application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., merits no consideration and it stands dismissed.
8.By my short order, dated 24-5-1999, the present application was dismissed and above is the detailed reasons for the same.