PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 99
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(5)--Application for--Cancellation of bail--There was previous enmity between them and accused persons over relationships, while on other hand dead body of deceased was found in area of Police Station--No one had witnessed occurrence and accused/respondents have been booked on basis of presumptions--Since, no recovery whatsoever has been affected from accused/respondents therefore, trial Court, while granting bail to accused/ respondents has opined that case against them falls within ambit of further inquiry--So prima-facie on basis of tentative assessment made for considering bail, case of accused/respondents is that of further inquiry--As far as motive is concerned, that has to be proved firstly by prosecution, in a criminal case and burden to prove same cannot be placed and shifted on shoulders of accused/respondents, therefore accused are not bound to explain motive of their false implication--Mere abscondance of accused/respondents could not be treated as sufficient ground for holding them to be prima-facie connected with offence under Section 302, P.P.C.--Counsel for applicant failed to demonstrate that bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice--No reasonable ground exists for cancellation of bail granted to respondents--Application is dismissed. [Para 4 & 6] A & C
Principles for grant and cancellation of bail--
----Principles--Principles governing grant and cancellation of bail are absolutely different and grounds which may not be found favourable for allowing concession of bail to a person would not necessarily be good grounds for cancellation of bail--Normally grounds which are taken into consideration for cancellation of bail are:--
i) bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it;
ii) the applicant has misused concession of bail and is causing fear and alarm to complainant and prosecution witnesses;
iii) the accused on bail hampers investigation;
iv) that there is likelihood of witnesses being won over and their evidence being tampered with;
v) the accused was likely to abscond after grant of bail;
vi) the accused was implicated as principal offender in several cases which badly affect society at large, such as in case of heroin smuggling; and
vii) the order granting bail was arbitrary, capricious and against evidence available with prosecution. [Para 5] B
Mr. Ali Hassan Bugti, Advocate for Applicant.
Date of hearing: 24.6.2019.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 99
[Balochistan High Court, Quetta]
Present: Rozi Khan Barrech, J.
ABDULLAH KHAN--Applicant
versus
GHULAM JAN and 2 others--Respondents
Crl. B. Cancellation No. 331 of 2019, decided on 28.6.2019.
Order
Through instant application the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents vide order dated 7th May 2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta (“trial Court”) in FIR No. 14 of 2014 registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Quetta under Sections 302 read with 34 P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a case was registered vide FIR No. 14 of 2014 on 12.01.2014 on the complaint of the applicant Abdullah against the accused/respondents alleging therein that on the said date at 11:00 am he received telephone call that his son has been murdered and his dead body is lying at Civil Hospital Quetta. He rushed to the hospital, where he found they dead body of his son Sajid Ali. It is further alleged in the FIR that there exists enmity between them and Abdul Razzaq, his sons Sanaullah and nephews Ghulam Jan and Attaullah over relationship, and he believe that the above mentioned accused persons had murdered his son. Consequently the FIR was lodged.
After completion of the investigation the challan was submitted before the trial Court. On 06.05.2019 the accused/respondents were arrested, who moved an application before the trial Court under Section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of post arrest bail, which was accepted by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.05.2019. Hence this application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused/ respondents are nominated in the FIR and there was previous enmity between the accused and complainant party on basis whereof the nominated accused persons committed murder of complainant’s son. He further argued that the accused/respondents remained absconders for the last many years and on this ground as well they were not entitled for concession of bail. He finally urged that after recalling the bail granting order passed by the trial Court the accused/respondents be taken into custody.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the record available on case file. The accused/respondents were booked in the case FIR in hand only on the basis that, there was previous enmity between them and the accused persons over relationships, while on the other hand the dead body of the deceased was found in the area of Police Station Satellite Town Quetta. No one had witnessed the occurrence and the accused/ respondents have been booked on basis of presumptions. Since, no recovery whatsoever has been affected from the accused/ respondents therefore, the trial Court, while granting bail to the accused/ respondents has opined that the case against them falls within the ambit of further inquiry. So prima-facie on basis of tentative assessment made for considering bail, the case of accused/respondents is that of further inquiry. As far as the motive is concerned, that has to be proved firstly by the prosecution, in a criminal case and the burden to prove the same cannot be placed and shifted on the shoulders of the accused/respondents, therefore the accused are not bound to explain the motive of their false implication. Mere abscondance of the accused/respondents could not be treated as sufficient ground for holding them to be prima-facie connected with the offence under Section 302, P.P.C.
5. The principles governing the grant and cancellation of bail are absolutely different and the grounds which may not be found favourable for allowing concession of bail to a person would not necessarily be good grounds for cancellation of bail. Normally the grounds which are taken into consideration for cancellation of bail are:--
i) bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it;
ii) the applicant has misused the concession of bail and is causing fear and alarm to the complainant and the prosecution witnesses;
iii) the accused on bail hampers the investigation;
iv) that there is likelihood of witnesses being won over and their evidence being tampered with;
v) the accused was likely to abscond after grant of bail;
vi) the accused was implicated as the principal offender in several cases which badly affect the society at large, such as in the case of heroin smuggling; and
vii) the order granting the bail was arbitrary, capricious and against the evidence available with the prosecution.
6. As, a result of above discussion, I feel no hesitation in holding that the learned counsel for the applicant failed to demonstrate that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. No reasonable ground exists for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Application dismissed
0 Comments