Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 411 of 1978, decided on 19th October 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑9‑1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No..3672‑B of 1978):

----S.497‑Bail‑Prosecution evidence‑Cannot be sifted in minute details at stage of bail application‑Case registered after a responsible inquiry held by Assistant Commissioner‑Various abductees including females recovered from various places in different districts and such persons having their woeful tales to tell‑Very difficult at stage of bail to state all evidence direct or circumstantial against petitioner being false‑Petitioner having ample opportunity to demonstrate his point of view during trial‑No fundamental error of law or violation of any principle relevant for administration of justice in criminal cases warranting interference in discretionary order of High Court pointed out and High Court passing order by keeping overall facts and circumstances of case in view‑Interference declined and petition dismissed‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

S. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate, Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 19th October 1978.

‑The petitioner who is a retired Superintendent of Police is involved in a case under sections 148/149/452/376, 366/365/364/363/362/366, P. P. C. as per F. 1. R. No. 17 registered at Police Station, Jhelum City on 18‑8‑1978, on a written complaint of the Assistant Commissioner, Jhelum. According to the Prosecution case the petitioner had a dispute with Khushi Muhammad regarding some land 'from which the petitioner wanted to evict him. Having failed to secure his eviction through any Court of competent jurisdiction, it is alleged, that on the night between 16th and 17th August 1978, the petitioner alongwith others launched an attack as a result whereof the entire family of Khushi Muhammad including female members were lifted and some of them were taken away to District Sargodha and some to Kamalia, District Faisalabad. Some of the female members were molested and even raped. The occurrence caused a sensation in the district and the Deputy Commis sioner entrusted its inquiry to the Assistant Commissioner, who after recording the statements of Ghulam Fatima daughter‑in‑law of Khushi Muhammad and various others, directed the registration of the aforesaid F. I. R.

2. The petitioner filed an application for bail before arrest but the same was rejected by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 28‑8‑1978.

3. It appears that the petitioner was then arrested and after arrest he again made a move for his bail but his application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 31‑8‑1978. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalum, who also declined bail to him vide his order dated 26‑9‑1878. The petitioner then filed criminal miscellaneous application No. 3672‑B/1978 which came up before the same learned Single Judge of the High Court who had rejected the "'bail before arrest" application earlier. The learned Single Judge rejected the second application also on 30‑9‑1978 observing that "there is no change of facts and circumstances except that the earlier petition was for bail before arrest while this has been moved after the arrest". He further observed that the "learned counsel has repeated almost the same arguments which were dealt earlier with more emphasis on two points; (i) that there was change of story with involvement of additional accused persons including the petitioner at different stages; and (ii) that the offence of section 364, P. P. C. would not be made out even if the allegations made are accepted because there was no intention to murder, at the initial stage of alleged abduction". The learned Single Judge found no force in the points raised and dismissed the application by observing that "as pointed out in the earlier proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned it is not a fit case for bail before the recording of the evidence. No justification‑ has been made out for change of view". Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid order the petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.

4. Learned counsel repeated the same submissions which he had made before the learned Single Judge. He argued that this is a false case; that the petitioner had been maliciously involved in it; and now the net has been expanded so wide that even close relations of the petitioner have also been roped in; that the allegations of molesting and rape of females against various accused are totally baseless; that the prosecution witnesses made improvements in their relative statements and that the whole case is a mere concoction. The learned Single Judge has attended to all the aforesaid pleas and was of the view that the initial written report was too short to say that it contained all the allegations of the offence; some police recruits were originally involved in the occurrence and as the principal accused was a retired Superintendent of police general allegation was made that the police was responsible for what had happened to various abductees. The son of the petitioner was still an absconder and it was not justified at this stage to go behind the various statements made by the witnesses to the various concerned authorities. We have attended to the order of the learned Singe Judge and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that it is not a stage to sift the prosecution evidence in minute details in the manner in which it is sought to be analysed by the learned counsel. The case was registered after a responsible inquiry which was held by the Assistant Commissioner. Various abductees including females were recovered from various places in different districts who had their own woeful tales to tell and at this stage it is very difficult to state that all the evidence direct or circumstantial against the petitioner is false. The petitioner will have ample opportunity oft demonstrate his point of view during the trial. Learned counsel has no been able to point out any fundamental error of law or violation of an principle relevant for the administration of justice in criminal cases warranting interference in the discretionary order of the High Court which has been passed by keeping the over all facts and the circumstances of the case in view. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.

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.