Find a Lawyer

--- Ss. 497 & 498-Bail in non-bailable offences--Accused charged with non-compoundable offence-Not supposed to approach complainant or witnesses-Cancellation, on ground of tampering with evidence --Accused admitting having approached complainant through others ("Pir" and "panchayat") and asked for pardon--Bail, in circumstance, held, rightly cancelled-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Emperor v. Jiwan Lal Gauba 164 I C 376 ref.

Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for the State.

[This case was earlier reported in April issue as P L D 1975 Lah. 301. It transpired that a full page of the judgment of his Lordship was not printed. It inadvertantly happened for the reason that this page was missing in the copy supplied to us. The case is, therefore, being reproduced is full].

Ghulam petitioner and 4 others are accused for the murder of one Faiz Ahmad. The inquiry against them is in progress before a Magistrate at Okara in District Sahiwal. Petitioner is 70 years old and was attributed the role of raising a lalkara only. He was, therefore, allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 21-3-74. Later, the complainant made an application for the cancellation of his bail before the same Court at Sahiwal, on the ground that the petitioner was intimidating and harassing the witnesses by approaching them through their Pir'.

2. Though in his affidavit before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner denied these allegations, but on verbal inquiry made by the learned Sessions Judge, he admitted to have approached the witnesses, and also admitted having asked the complainant to pardon him. He also admitted to have approached the complainant through his "Pir" and a Panchayat. These admissions were considered by the learned Sessions Judge as tempering with the evidence. He, therefore, cancelled his bail on the 12th June 1974. The petitioner is in custody since then and has applied for bail to this Court.

3. It is contended that asking for a pardon or approaching the com plainant through his 'Pir' and a Panchayat to speak the truth did not amount to tempering with evidence because the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by attributing the role of a lalkara to him.

4. I am of the view that the question of false implication is not relevant at this stage. The informant has levelled certain allegations against the petitioner and prosecution witnesses have made their statements against him during the investigation. Whether their account of the occurrence is true or false is to be judged by the Courts. Conduct of the petitioner in approaching the complainant through others amounted to tempering with the evidence. Accused cannot be encouraged to approach prosecution witnesses out of Court. As observed by Muhammad .Din, J. in Emperor v. Jlwan Lal Gauba, reported at page 376 of Indian Cases (1936) Vol. 164

"The granting of bail in a non-bailable offence is a concession allowed to an accused person and it presupposes that this privilege is not to be abused in any manner and that the accused person has not to come into contact with the prosecution witnesses or to exert any undue influence on them so as to destroy the evidence or to minimise its effect against him. It is a sort of trust reposed in him by Court and if it is found that he has betrayed this trust in any manner or that he has misused the liberty thus granted to him by Court, he disentitles himself to the privilege so granted."

An accused who is charged with an offence which is not compoundable is not supposed to approach the complainant. It is no doubt true that the object of section 497(5), Cr. P. C. is not punitive but it is equally true that the interests of the administration of justice demand that no body should be allowed to impede the course of justice or hamper its administration in any manner. I, therefore, dismiss the petition.

5. It will, however, be open to the committing Magistrate to consider the question of bail after recording the statements of the eye-witnesses or if the witnesses do not appear for evidence and the enquiry is unduly delayed.

[Copy of this order be given dash on payment of usual charges].

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.