1985 P Cr (PLP)

Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti for Respondents. Muhammad Naeem Goreja for the State. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1982. This petition has been moved by Rehmat Ali and Abdul Aziz, both sons of Umar Din caste Jat residents of Chak No.513/E.B., Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari, under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Tufail, respondents, by the orders of this Court dated 20th August, 1981 and 18th November, 1981. The main ground taken up by the petitioners is, that the respondents who are accused of offences under section 302/ 307134, P.P.C. are misusing the concession of bail by holding a threat to the witnesses that they will face with dire consequences if they would continue to support the prosecution case against them.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the affidavits placed on record by both the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.1, happened to visit the Chak of Rehmat Ali, petitioner No.1, and sent a message to him through Wali Muhammad, Chowkidar, that if the former insisted to pursue the case against him, then he would settle accounts with him, too. Again on 9th September, 1981, Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.1, allegedly abused Rehmat Ali, petitioner, for which a report was lodged at the police station, the same day. Photostat copies of two more affidavits purported to have been sworn by Rehmat Ali, petitioner and Muhammad Ramzan, P.W., dated 15th March, 1982 have also been filed wherein it has been alleged that both the respondent‑accused had held out threats as well as they had made monetary offer to them persuading them not to appear against them in Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed on record sworn affidavits on behalf of the two respondents‑accused wherein they had controverted the allegation of stubborning the witnesses.

4. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As for the report dated 9th September, 1981 recorded in the daily diary of the police station is concerned, Wall Muhammad, Chowkidar, who is stated to have carried the message containing threats from Muhammad Iqbal, respondent‑accused, to the witness has not supported the same by filing any affidavit to that effect. It is, therefore, in the nature of "hearsay" and does not carry any weight. Such like reports are easily lodged at the police station to support unfounded routine allegations with obvious motive. As for the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners are concerned, they are vague in nature inasmuch as they did not disclose as to where and when the respondents had threatened the witnesses or made monetary offers to them to resile from their statements.

5. There is yet another reason which renders the affidavits of the petitioners doubtful i.e., they appear to have been attested as late as 15th March, 1982 which I think had been done after it dawned upon the petitioners that their petition was not supported by the requisite affidavit. To me, it looks that this petition is inspired one, without any genuine basis. The allegations levelled against the respondent accused are not so serious that they should go to the extent of stubborning the witnesses.

6. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. S.A. Petition dismissed.