DIAL and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants Jial and Liaquat Ali after the rejection of their bail plea by the Sessions Court, Jacobabad, in connection with an F.I.R. registered on 21-5-2001 for murder. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail when the complainant and eye-witnesses have filed affidavits exonerating them and the State concedes to the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the material prosecution witnesses are not prepared to support the prosecution case and have resiled through affidavits, the case against the applicants falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where material eye-witnesses exonerate the accused on affidavit, the case ordinarily attracts further inquiry under bail jurisprudence, though witnesses making false statements may render themselves liable to scrutiny and show-cause proceedings for giving false information or false charges.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the complainant and eye-witnesses file affidavits exonerating the accused?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence when primary witnesses refuse to support the prosecution version?
- Can a court issue a show-cause notice for potential proceedings under sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against a complainant who resiles from their initial F.I.R. statement?
- Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 211, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicants Jial and Liaquat Ali after rejection of their prayer for pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Court, Jacobabad, have approached this Court for the same relief.
2. ' The complainant Ghulam Mustafa in his F.I.R. Lodged. On 21-5-2001 has alleged that Ranjhan (absconding accused) his son-in-law, accused Daim brother of Ranjhan and two accused (present applicants) all armed with guns were seen by him in his house. Out of them it is alleged that Ranjhan fired at his wife, Hakimzadi, the complainant's daughter who died on the spot due to receipt of gun shot.
3. The bail of the applicants is pressed on the grounds that the complainant and two eye-witnesses Khuda Bux and Muhib have filed their affidavits wherein they have exonerated both the applicants.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon 1991 SCM R 111 and 1988 SCM R 474.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicants.
6. ' What can really be deduced from the above is that neither the complainant nor the two eye- witnesses are prepared to support the prosecution case. There are only three above named eye- witnesses, as far involvement of the two applicants is concerned. The authorities referred above support the contentions of the applicants counsel. The case against the applicants would fall within ambit of further inquiry. Interim pre-arrest bail granted to both the applicants on 10-8-2001 is, therefore, confirmed in the same terms and conditions.
7. ' The complainant in his F.I.R. Has very clearly stated that he had seen applicants Jial and Liaquat in side his house at midnight time and both of them were armed with guns. In his affidavit filed in Court, he has however, stated that in fact the applicants are not the real culprits of this case and he had only suspected them. The trend of resiling from statements through affidavits by the prosecution witnesses is being witnessed since some time past. They do not hesitate in making such changed statements even before Courts of law. If a glaring go bye to a previous version, as given by the complainant in this case is allowed to go unnoticed, the provisions of sections 182 and 211, P.P.C. Shall remain redundant. Obviously, the police are unable to take cognizance of these misstatements or false statements. The stress to speak the truth always, is far more high in our religion. Qur'anic Verse 135 of Surat 4 (Alnisa) needs no elucidation. The complainant, therefore, needs to be questioned. A show-cause notice as to why a case under sections 182/211, P.P.C. Be not registered against him be issued to the complainant. The complainant is directed to come with his reply to the show-cause notice on 31-8-2001.