AAMAR YQUSAF vs SAJID ALI
This criminal revision petition challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a case involving dacoity (FIR No. 373/2000). The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail based on the fact that one witness had resiled from his statement, despite the existence of other incriminating evidence, including the recovery of looted items and weapons from the accused by police officials. The High Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the material on record, specifically ignoring that the resiling witness had no nexus to the victim and that other eye-witnesses and police officials had implicated the respondent. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that one witness has resiled does not automatically create a case for 'further inquiry' when other substantial evidence exists. Consequently, the High Court set aside the bail order, cancelled the respondent's bail, and ordered him to be taken into custody to face trial.
- Does the fact that one witness has resiled from their statement automatically entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Is the discretion exercised by a trial court in granting bail subject to interference if the court failed to consider other incriminating evidence on the record?
- Can bail be cancelled if the trial court ignored the presence of other eye-witnesses and recovery evidence while focusing solely on a single witness who turned hostile?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Aamer Yousaf, complainant has laid challenge to the order of the Additional Sessions judge, Gujranwala, dated 20-4-2001 whereby he allowed post-arrest bail to respondent No,1 in a Criminal case vide F.I.R. No,373 registered with Police Station Saddar Gujranwala on 28-9-2000 under section 395, P.P.C.
2. The allegation contained in the First Information Report is that while Saleem Masih was driving the car containing huge amount of cash prize bond, travellor cheque and other amounts on behalf of his employer he was intercepted on the Highway by another car from which six persons emerged and looted the said amounts and they had hardly covered some distance when the police rounded them up and got recovered the amounts as well as the weapon of offence.
Respondent No,1 was one of those dacoits from whom looted amounts as well as .30 bore Pistol was recovered.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was impressed with the concession made by another passenger of the car from which the amount was looted that respondent No,1 was not present at the time of occurrence as he was not apprehended and nothing was recovered from him. Further, he was made to sign the blank papers.
4. Learned counsel contends that such witnesses can easily be procured, however, he was not the only witness of occurrence; there were other witnesses namely Saleem Masih and the police officials including Shafqat Rasheed Inspector/S.H.O. Who apprehended the petitioner and recovered the amount and fire-arm, therefore, one witness having resiled from his statement does not make out a case of further inquiry particularly when the offence is that of dacoity and the dacoits having armed with deadly weapon looted the huge amount.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 insists that the concession made by Liaqat Ali made out a case of further inquiry and the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was proper.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that it was a serious offence for which concession of bail should not have been extended particularly when the challan was submitted in the Court and the trial was about to commence.
7. I have attended to the arguments of the respective counsels and have gone through the record.
8. I see eye to eye with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant that Liaqat Ali was a passenger who subsequently boarded the car and, therefore, had no nexus either with the employer or driver and as a matter of grace he was allowed to accompany them, therefore, such witnesses could have been won over at any time, this is exactly what has happened. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not probe into the matter a bit deeply so as to ascertain as to why Liaqat Ali resiled from his statement in the presence of the statement of other eye-witnesses connecting the respondent with the commission of offence, it was not a proper discretion exercised by him. Resultantly the by. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, vide his order, dated 20-4-2001 is recalled and cancelled. Respondent shall be taken in custody to face his trial. Application succeeds.
Bail cancelled.