It is apathy to point out that the main ground on which the learned single bench granted postarrest bail to the respondent is that one of the witness has taken a somersault contrary to the earlier statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed a private complaint wherein she has advanced a story altogether different to the story advanced by the prosecution.

 2022 SCMR 1299

It is apathy to point out that the main ground on which the learned single bench granted postarrest bail to the respondent is that one of the witness has taken a somersault contrary to the earlier statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed a private complaint wherein she has advanced a story altogether different to the story advanced by the prosecution. This solitary ground, if taken in favour of the respondent, it will open new avenues, contrary to the safe administration of criminal justice whereby at any stage if one of the witness makes a divergent statement to the earlier one bringing the case within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. then it will transform into mockery in the eyes of law. We have noticed that it has become customary in number of cases that each one of the witness after settling his score with the accused party comes forward to file a complaint contrary to the prosecution case with an intent just to frustrate the case of the prosecution. This practice cannot be ordained in any manner. The prosecution witness at any stage may repudiate from the earlier statement and can make a divergent statement before the court during the course of trial enabling the prosecution an opportunity to get him declared hostile and cross-examine so that truth can be brought on the record. Probably same is the situation in this case where one of the sister of the respondent had made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.0 in line with the prosecution version at the time of lodging of crime report but subsequently after lapse of more than one year, she had taken a different stance while making a statement, which is contrary to the prosecution version with an intent to benefit the respondent. As the respondent is involved in number of cases of similar nature and having clandestine background, the possibility of fear and undue pressure faced by the witness cannot be ruled out, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the considerations for the grant of post-arrest bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on different footing, it is worth mentioning that it is a case where the learned High Court while granting bail has misinterpreted the considerations in toto and has exercised discretion arbitrarily, fancifully and in complete disregard to the principles enunciated by this Court, which cannot be given assent by this Court. Apart from this, we have noticed that the alleged recovered pistol 9mm from the respondent on 08.05.2020 was sent to the office of the Forensic Science Agency and all the empties recovered from the place of occurrence were found to be fired from the same, a positive report has been issued by the said Agency. We have specifically inquired from the learned counsel for the respondent about the stage of the private complaint lodged by the respondent to which he informed that the private complaint is still at the preliminary stage and even no notice has been issued to the respondents mentioned over there, therefore, the same is of no help to the respondent. We have been informed that several FIRs of similar nature have been registered against the respondent. Although learned counsel for the respondent vehemently stated that in all of the cases, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge but no document in this regard could be placed on record, however, it is also controverted by the Investigating Officer present in the court. The learned High Court did not take into consideration any of the above-said aspects of the matter, therefore, we are constrained to hold that the reasoning advanced by the learned High Court while granting bail to the respondent is artificial, fanciful and without any legal justification. We are under bounden duty to attend to the facts and circumstances of the Us brought before us and to evaluate the same in such a manner so that no injustice is caused to either of the party. In the instant case, the learned High Court has not given any sticiable reasoning to bring the case of the respondent within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.0 calling for further probe into his guilt. In our opinion, in the instant case the learned High Court while granting bail to the respondent has erred in law and facts and has passed an order which is illegal, perverse, fanciful, arbitrary. As a consequence, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order and cancel the bail granted to the respondent by the learned High Court.