SANWAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sanwan, who was implicated in a criminal case following a subsequent statement by the complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of two conflicting versions of the incident: the initial F.I.R., which named different individuals as culprits, and a subsequent statement recorded by a Revenue Mukhtiarkar, which implicated the applicant. The Court observed that the Revenue Mukhtiarkar lacked the legal authority to record such a statement and noted that the prosecution's case relied on a version that contradicted the initial F.I.R. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Jaffar v. The State (1987 PCr.LJ 1338), the Court held that where there are conflicting versions regarding the identity of the culprits, it remains to be determined at trial which version is correct. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the uncertainty created by the conflicting accounts entitled the accused to the concession of bail pending the final adjudication of the case.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there are two conflicting versions of the incident regarding the identity of the culprits?
- Does a Revenue Mukhtiarkar have the legal authority to record a further statement of a complainant in a criminal case?
ORDER
1. ' Learned counsel for applicant has argued that in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Kasaro Gadehi at Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station on 12-12-1999, he had not given name of the applicant Sanwan to be the culprit of the incident of this case, and that names of Makhan, Ahmed. Kouro, Arzoo and Pandhi were given by him in the said F.I.R. For the purpose of attacking upon complainant's brother Jalal and thereby causing hatchet blows on his head, and by firing the gun on his person in consequence whereof Jalal expired and Muhammad Siddique was also inflicted fire-arm injuries; but the police let off all the said persons nominated in the F.I.R. (excepting absconding accused Hazooro) having not found guilty of the offence of this case, and that in his further statement of the complainant, he implicated the present applicant and others for committing the said offence.
2. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has stated that the Revenue Mukhtiarkar of Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah had recorded further statement of the complainant on 1-3-1999, while he was not invested with any such power and wherein the names of the present applicant and others were given by the complainant to be the actual culprits of the incident of this case and wherein complainant stated that "by mistake he gave the names of the persons nominated in the F.I.R."
3. Accordingly, learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported this bail application.
4. ' In a case reported in Muhammad Jaffar v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1338 (Karachi) bail was granted to the accused/applicant of the said case with the following observation:-- "In view of the above said circumstances it can be said that there are two versions of the incident and it had yet to be decided as to which of the two versions is correct. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo has relied on an unreported decision of Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No,76-K of 1978 (Criminal Appeal No,1-K of 1985) in which the facts were that there were two versions about the role assigned to the respondent, first in the F.I.R. And then in the direct complaint. It was held by the supreme Court that under such circumstances the respondent was entitled to bail. The ratio of the above decision is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Mr. Abdul Sattar, A.A.-G. Has also conceded that in view of the conflicting version of the incident, the applicant is entitled to bail."
5. ' This case being the case of conflicting version of the incident so far the culprits thereof at whose hands the incident allegedly took place, it is yet to be seen as to which one out of the said two versions is correct and which is false one, the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1.00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. Ball allowed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. Afija Mukhtar alias Afia Versus State through Advocate General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad 2026 YLR 1884
- MUHAMMAD AZAD KHAN vs STATE through Advocate General, Azad Jammu 2019 MLD 799
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs STATE and another 2011 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 48