- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Heard Sri A. K. Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned State Counsel.
(2.) THE applicants are accused in Crime No. 191 of 1993, P. S. Thana Bhawan, district Muzaffarnagar, under Section 382, I. P. C. THE learned counsel for the applicants has prayed that the bail application of the applicant may be concerned and disposed of the same day. I have gone through the F. I. R. of the case and I am of the opinion that the offence is rather serious. According to the prosecution the applicants demolished five houses and removed property. The learned counsel have filed their affidavits denying the prosecution case and in view of the evidence in the form of the affidavit there remains no other reliable evidence against the applicants. While considering bail application such affidavits have no evidentiary value at all. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus:- "this Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It extends to the whole India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including Courts- Martial, other than Courts-Martial convened under the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 or the Air Force Act but not to affidavits presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator. . . . "
(3.) SUCH affidavits are no evidence unless any law permits evidence to be filed in the form of affidavit. It is common knowledge that accused prevail upon the prosecution witnesses and out of fear precure affidavit. As such I am of the opinion that the courts while considering bail applications should not consider affidavits of the witnesses filed in the manner as in this case. The tendency of the accused to procure affidavits is showing signs of steady increase and has already become rampant. This application is accordingly rejected. Applications dismissed. .;