GUL HASSAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Gul Hassan, in relation to Crime No. 98 of 2000 registered under Section 17(3) of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of conflicting evidence: statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which implicated the applicant, and subsequent affidavits filed by the complainant/victim and two eye-witnesses, which exonerated him. The Court held that where there are two conflicting versions of evidence—one implicating the accused and another exonerating him via affidavits from material witnesses—the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that the filing of affidavits by material witnesses exonerating an accused creates a situation of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial, especially when the remaining witnesses are merely police officials.
- Does the filing of affidavits by material witnesses exonerating an accused, when contrasted with their earlier statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the primary witnesses have sworn affidavits exonerating him, despite having implicated him in earlier police statements?
- Section 17(3), Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The present applicant is seeking bail. In Crime No,98 of 2000 registered with Police Station Shandadkot under section 17(3), Hudood Ordinance. He moved bail application before the trial Court, but without success, hence this bail application.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro has drawn my attention on the affidavit of Muhammad Allam who is not only the complainant in Crime No,98 of 2000, but at the same time he is the victim. He has also drawn my attention on the affidavit of Riaz Hussain who is one of the eye-witnesses in the Crime No,98 of 2000. He has also drawn my attention on the affidavit of Shoukat who is also one of the eye-witnesses and they have sworn affidavits before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadkot which are available with this file and they have not implicated the present applicant and he has been exonerated by them. Mr. Soomro has further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadkot did not take into consideration the affidavits filed by the. Victim (complainant) and two eye-witnesses and the rest of the witnesses are police officials.
3. ' On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal, Advocate for Additional Advocate-General for the State has confirmed from the contents of challan copy that they are the material witnesses and they have sworn affidavits before the trial Court and they have not implicated the present applicant and has given no objection to the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and affidavits sworn by complainant/victim, Riaz Hussain and Shoukat who were also eyewitnesses and in their affidavits they have exonerated the present applicant. I have also taken into consideration their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which they have implicated the present applicant. There are two sets of evidence (1) in the shape of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And (2) in the shape of the affidavits sworn by the complainant/victim Muhammad Allam, Riaz Hussain (eyewitness), Shoukat All (eye-witness) and since there are two versions and which version is correct is yet to be seen at the time of trial and superior Courts have granted bail to the accused on the ground of affidavits being filed by the material witnesses. In the present case, the aforenamed witnesses are the material and the rest of the witnesses are police officials and I am of the considered view that the case of the present applicant in view of the affidavits sworn by them and their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before police is falling within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And accordingly the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs,One lac and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.