PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1454
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(5)--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Counsel for petitioner failed that any of ground laid down by superior Courts for cancellation of bail was made out/attracted--Needless to remark that bail granting order can be cancelled sparingly and any extraordinary circumstances neither borne out from record nor shown by counsel for petitioner--This is an application for cancellation of bail and that consideration for cancellation of bail are quite different from grounds for grant of bail grounds for cancellation of bail are akin to grounds for appeal against acquittal--Order whereby bail, was granted is perverse no other conclusion could be drawn except guilt of accused or that there was material substance not considered by Court resulting in miscarriage of justice--It may be noted that counsel did not make any submission on these lines--Petition was dismissed. [P. 1456] B, C & D
1992 SCMR 1286.
Cancellation of bail--
----Principle--Cancellation of bail is harsh order, which amounts to curtail liberty of citizens--Bail once granted is cancelled in exceptional circumstances--For cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court, very strong and cogent reasons are required--For instance, if bail granting order is perverse or is in disregard of well settled principles regarding grant of bail or it is based of no material/evidence. [P. 1456] A
PLD 1995 SC 34.
Ch. Ahsan Ali Gill, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Hassan Mehmood Tareen Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
M/s. Malik Fahad Imran Khokhar and Rana Jehanzaib Khan, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 14.6.2021.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1454
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J.
ATTA HUSSAIN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 7401-CB of 2020, decided on 14.6.2021.
Order
Through this petition filed in terms of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran in case FIR No. 255 dated 16.7.2020 under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 354, 148,149, PPC registered at Police Station Galiywal, District Lodhran whereby Respondents No. 2 to 5 were admitted to pre-arrest bail.
2. Allegedly, Respondents No. 2 to 5 being members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object caused injuries to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said respondents were specifically nominated in the FIR and have been ascribed a specific role but the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to confirm their ad-interim pre-arrest bail by ignoring the law on the subject declared by the apex Court, thus, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 maintained the validity of the impugned order.
5. I have considered the points raised at the bar and has perused the record.
6. A review of the record demonstrates that learned Additional Sessions Judge admitted the respondents to pre-arrest bail and dealt with the merits of the case in Para-6 of the impugned order which suggested that it was a free fight, a cross-version was also recorded and the investigating agency concluded that the opposite side was aggressor and the respondents were aggressed. The complainant’s side also concealed of sustaining injuries by the respondents as no such injury find mentioned in the crime report. One of the injury, however, was declared as Ghayr Jaifah Munaqqillah which falls under Section 337-F(vi), PPC, however, it was mentioned that the trial in this case has been commenced and was posted for prosecution evidence. After the commencement of trial and summoning of prosecution evidence recall of the bail granting order may prejudice the case of either of the party, thus, I would refrain to interfere in this matter.
7. The cancellation of bail is harsh order, which amounts to curtail the liberty of the citizens. The bail once granted is cancelled in exceptional circumstances. For cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court, very strong and cogent reasons are required. For instance, if bail granting order is perverse or is in disregard of well settled principles regarding the grant of bail or it is based of no material/evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34) has held so with considerable clarity and has laid down a binding principle to that effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed that any of the ground laid down by the superior Courts for cancellation of bail was made out/attracted. Needless to remark that the bail granting order can be cancelled sparingly and any extraordinary circumstances neither borne out from the record nor shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. It may also be noted that this is an application for cancellation of bail and that consideration for cancellation of bail are quite different from the grounds for grant of bail. The grounds for cancellation of bail are akin to the grounds for appeal against acquittal. This was the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as “Mian Dad v. The State and another” (1992 SCMR 1286).
As such, in order to succeed, the learned counsel is required to show that the order whereby the bail, was granted is perverse no other conclusion could be drawn except the guilt of the accused or that there was material substance not considered by the Court resulting in miscarriage of the justice. It may be noted that the learned counsel did not make any submission on these lines.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments