Find a Lawyer

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

-- Ss. 497 & 498-Bail in non-bailable offences-Cancellation, on round of tampering with evidence - Accused admitting having approached complainant through others ("pir" and "panchayat")-Bail, in circumstances, held, rightly cancelled-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Emperor v. Awan Lal Gauba 164 1 C 376 ref.

Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for the State.

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 trade 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 tampering 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 complainant through his 'Pir' and a Panchayat to speak the truth did not amount to tampering 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 tampering with the evidence. Accused cannot be encouraged to approach prosecution witnesses out of Court as observed by Muhammad Din, J. in Emperor v. Jiwan Lal Gauba 164 I C 376.

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 dasti on payment of usual charges.

K. B. A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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