MOATBAR and another vs THE STATE
The applicants sought post-arrest bail after bail was declined by the Anti-Terrorism Court in Crime No. 12 of 2002 under sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with provisions of the Arms Ordinance and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail when the prosecution witnesses had previously exonerated them in a related trial resulting in acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that reliance on police statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was uncalled for in light of the subsequent acquittal where the same witnesses exonerated the applicants, thereby making out a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted the applicants to post-arrest bail subject to surety, establishing the principle that conflicting prior exonerations by key witnesses in related proceedings weaken the evidentiary value of police statements at the bail stage.
- Whether a case for further inquiry is made out for bail when prosecution witnesses exonerated the accused in a related trial?
- Can reliance be placed on statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the same witnesses have exonerated the accused?
- Are accused persons entitled to bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when previous judicial proceedings resulted in acquittal on the same facts?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Bail was declined by the learned Judge. Anti-Terrorism Court No.III, Sukkur and Larkana Division at Sukkur on the ground, inter alia, that the alleged abductee Karim Bux and Abdul Majeed have implicated the applicants/accused in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements in Crime No.12 of 2002 for an offence under sections 324,353, 148 and 149, f.P.C. 13 DAO and section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act of Police Station Sultan Kot.
2. ' It was contended by the learned counsel that in Crime No.12 of 2002 of Police Station Staurt Ganj, District Shikarpur, the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Sukkur recorded the acquittal on the ground that P.Ws. Abdul Karim and Abdul Majeed exonerated the present applicants from the commission of the crime. It was, thereforL1, contended that reliance on such 161, Cr.P.C. Statements in the instant case is uncalled for case of further enquiry is made out. The learned State counsel concedes to such position.
3. ' Under the circumstances, the applicants are admitted to bail however, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. Two hundred thousand each and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. ' Cr. B.A. No.333 of 2003, stands disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.