1991 P Cr (PLP)

Sanaullah and others v. State 1983 S C M R 15 and Muhammad Sharif and another v. State 1988 S C M R 541 ref. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for Applicant. Syed Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A.-G. for the State.

2. Applicant Anwar who is accused in the case that is outcome of F.I.R. No.56/90 lodged with Police Station Salehpat, has moved for bail. As per the F.I.R. on 19-7-1990 at about 1-00 p.m. complainant Abdul Ghani was present in Otak of Suleman where applicant Anwar came duly armed with hatchet. The applicant abused the complainant and gave him hatchet blow with sharp side. Complainant received the injury and he bled from the same and raised cries. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws. Ghulam,, Muhammad and Lal Bux who were already present in the Otak. They rescued the complainant. After causing the injuries, applicant went away. Allah Obhayo father of the complainant came there and he was apprised of the incident and he took the complainant to the police station where F.I.R. was lodged. Motive for the offence was that the applicant owed Rs.100 to the complainant. A day prior to the date of incident the complainant demanded back his money upon which there was exchange of hot words. The only ground urged by Mr. Ghulam Kadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the applicant in support of the application for bail was, that eye-witnesses Ghulam Muhammad, Lal Bux and Allah Obhayo had sworn affidavits exculpating the applicant. In support learned counsel cited the case of Muhammad Nawaz and others v. State 1989 P Cr. L J 1126. The application was opposed by learned Assistant A.-G. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi who argued that the complainant had not sworn any affidavit in favour of the applicant and that the applicant can be convicted on the sole evidence of the complainant if corroborated by the medical evidence. In support learned A.A.-G. cited case of Sanaullah and others v. State 1983 S C M R

15. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz and others 1989 P Cr. LJ 1126 the eye witnesses closely related to the deceased had sworn affidavits which exonerated the accused although the same eye-witnesses had specifically named the accused persons in their previous statements and the view taken was that by the affidavits whole ocular testimony of the prosecution was exposed to doubt and the remaining ocular evidence was not adequate for refusing bail. Cited case had facts materially different from facts of the instant case where the remaining evidence proposed,, to be adduced by prosecution may be adequate for refusing bail. In the case of Sanaullah the only eye-witness mentioned in the F.I.R. filed an affidavit to the effect that he had not seen the incident but the bail was refused on the ground that even if such witness be assumed to have not seen the occurrence, the complainant being a witness would support prosecution case and in the circumstances dismissal of the bail application was held to be justified. In the case of Muhammad Sharif and another v. State 1988 S C M R 541 the facts alleged by the prosecution showed that the accused/ petitioners were not only present at the house from where the two deceased persons were forcibly abducted but were also apprehended from the place where the dead bodies were found and subsequently the accused/petitioners obtained affidavits from the prosecution witnesses to the; effect that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution ever took place and inl the circumstances it was held that the High Court was right in observing that 1 prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It was observed in the said case that the affidavits by the witnesses that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution took place, could not be allowed to prevail at bail stage. In view of the case-law discussed above, I agree with learned A.A.-G, that the applicant has no case for bail. Hence this application stands dismissed. M.B.A./A-1015/K Application dismissed.