Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JAMAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Rahmat Hussain JafferiAbdul Baqi Jan Kakar,Zubair Ahmed Rajput
2005 Y L R 3312
2005 Y L R 3312
[Karachi]
Before Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, J
JAMAL -Applicant
Versus
THE STATE- -Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 179 of 2005, decided on 12th July, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Bail, grant of---Incident as alleged by complainant, appeared to have not taken place, but accused had been involved in the case falsely with mala fide intention---Such observation was supported by statements of all witnesses whose statements were recorded under S.161, Cr. P. C. ---Statements of said witnesses on oath under S.164, Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they disowned incident as alleged by complainant in F.I.R. and they exonerated accused from commission of crime---Accused being entitled to concession of bail, he was granted same, in circumstances.
Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar for Applicant.
Zubair Ahmed Rajput on behalf of Addl. A.-G. for the State.
ORDER
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---On 19-7-2004 the complainant A.S.-I. Akhtiar Ahmed received spy information that absconder Rasool Bux involved in Crime No.64 of 2000 was available at Link Road Kandiaro therefore the complainant along with his subordinate staff reached there where he found two persons present out of them one was absconder Rasool Bux and another was applicant Jamal who was alleged armed with gun. An encounter took place between police and said persons. The applicant was successful in running away from the place of the incident whereas Rasool Bux was arrested along with arms and ammunition. The complainant brought the accused and the property at the P.S. where he lodged the report.
The police started the investigation in which 161, Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Aves, Muhammad Ali, Allah Dad, Mohram Ali, who were in the police party were recorded in which they fully supported the contents of F.I.R. It further appears that on 2-8-2004 again 161, Cr.P.C. statements of all the above named witnesses were recorded in which they resiled from their earlier statements and they completely gave different story by alleging that no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. took place. They also did not implicate the present applicant. Thereafter on 23-8-2005 164, Cr.P.C. statements of all the above named witnesses were recorded by the Magistrate in which they supported their statements which were recorded on 2-8-2004 by exonerating the present applicant from the commission of this crime.
In these circumstances the learned State Counsel has no objection to the grant of bail.
From the above facts it appears that the incident as alleged by the complainant Akhtiar Ali appears to have not taken place but the applicant has been involved in this case falsely with mala fide intention. The said observation is supported by the statements of all the witnesses whose statements were recorded on 2-8-2004 under section 161, Cr. P. C. Their statements on oath under section 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded on 23-8-2004 in which they disowned the incident as alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R. and exonerated the applicant from the commission of this crime. As such the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently the bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 on furnishing solvent surety with P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the D.P.O., Naushahro Feroze for holding detailed enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against the delinquent officer under intimation to this Court. The process should be completed within a period of one month.
H.B.T./J-26/K Bail granted