Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.373/B of 1981, decided on 20th May, 1981.

---S.497(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.364-A--Bail, grant of--Facts that police approached trial Court for cancellation of case on ground that certain persons made statements on oath regarding petitioner's innocence .and delay also caused in making report to Police, held, could not be considered a good ground for grant of bail--Bail declined, in circumstances.

Iqbal Ahmad Malik for Petitioner.

Sh. Zia-ud-Din Ahmad Qamar for the Complainant.

Sultan Alam for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1981.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in the case registered against him under section 364-A/342, P.P.C. at Police Station Sarai Sidhu on 7-2-1981 on the main ground that after the completion of investigation the Police had made a request to the learned Sessions Judge as the case was exclusively triable by him for the cancellation of the case under section 169, Cr.P.C. which clearly indicated that the Police had not been able to lay its hands on sufficient evidence justifying petitioners trial for the offence in respect of which case had been registered against him. There was also inordinate delay in the registration of the case which has not been satisfactorily explained by the informant.

2. Petitioner's prayer for bail has been opposed on behalf of the State. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the State that the Police had not made a request for the cancellation of the case against the petitioners because of non-availability of evidence against him but on the other hand the above request was made during the course of investigation as certain persons had made statements on oath as proposed by the informant with regard to the innocence of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the request made by the Police as the persons named in the F.I. R. , who had seen the petitioner taking away the minor daughter of the informant had full supported the prosecution case when examined by the Police. According to the learned counsel for the State there is sufficient evidence available against the petitioner justifying his trial under section 364-A, Cr.P.C The complainant had explained in the F.I.R. that he could not report the matter to the police earlier as the petitioner and his relatives had been entreating him for not taking the matter to the Police.

3. The mere fact that the Police had approached the learned Session: Judge with a request for cancellation of case against the petitioner because the complainant was satisfied after certain persons had made statements on oath as proposed by him regarding the petitioner's innocence cannot be considered as a ground for allowing bail to thy petitioner because it is difficult to appreciate how the Police was justified in taking into consideration the statement of complainant while investigating a cognizable case that he would be satisfied if a particular person was to make a statement on oath that the accused named by hid in the report was innocent. At least there is no legal provision which warrants the adoption of any such procedure by a Police Officer whip investigating a case. In the case under consideration, the complainant, had made some offer that if certain persons were to state on oath that' the petitioner was innocent, he would not pursue the matter further but now it has been disclosed that the complainant does not want to withdraw the accusation made by him against the petitioner. The witnesses named in the F.I.R. have made statements before the Police supporting the prosecution case. Under these circumstances it is difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that his case is covered by subsection (2) section 497, Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer who has appeared in Court has disclosed that the challan against the petitioner has already been forwarded to the prosecution agency for necessary scrutiny.

4. As regards the delay in the registration of case, the complainant has given some explanation in the F.I.R. It would be for the learned trial Court to consider it in the light of other facts and circumstances which would be placed before it. At this stage the delay in the registration of case cannot be considered as a ground for admitting the petitioner to bail.

5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the petitioner's application for bail and the same is dismissed.

S. G. D. Bail refused

Find a Lawyer Near You

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