Cancellation of Bail.

 It is settled that in criminal matters, each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injury on the head of the deceased and the said injury was spelt out from the medical evidence. He was found involved in the commission of offence in the first investigation and the ipse dixit of the second Investigating Officer, especially in the above mentioned circumstances, had no persuasive value. Although learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon certain judgments and even the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on certain judgments qua opinion of the Investigating Officer but we observe that in all the said judgments, the basic thing, which has to be considered by the Court, is whether the said opinion is based upon cogent and concrete material. In the absence of any material/data no credit can be given to such ipse dixit of the Police Officer. If the plea i.e. ipse dixit of the police, on the basis of which the respondent has been released on bail is accepted, the same would amount to discredit the version of the eye witnesses at this initial stage of the case which of course is not permissible in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The practice adopted by the learned High Court through the impugned order is not appreciable. The High Court while granting bail to the respondent has ignored the relevant material indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime and took into account irrelevant material which had no nexus to the question of grant of bail to the accused. It is settled law that bail granting order could be cancelled if the same was perverse. An order which is, inter-alia, entirely against the weight of the evidence on record, by ignoring material evidence on record indicating, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the commission of crime, is always considered as a perverse order, which is in present case as material evidence on the record brought by prosecution promptly, was not given any weight by the High Court and a perverse order was passed upon a baled opinion of second Investigating Officer.

If bail can be granted after the commencement of trial, the same can be cancelled even after the commencement of trial, especially when bail granting order is perverse and based upon ipse dixit of Police, which is not based upon strong material or data.No hard and fast rule can be laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely for the reason that the trial has commenced or is likely to commence because every case is to be examined in the light of its own facts, and the crucial question that arises for determination would be as to whether a person is entitled to grant of bail under the provision of section 497 Cr.P.C. which, as already observed, the respondent was not entitled to, especially, when there is sufficient material available against him in the shape of ocular account as well as the medical evidence and the circumstance that he alongwith other accused committed the murder of his two real brothers.

Crl.P.475/2022
Amir Faraz v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood
Detailed Judgement 09-01-2023
Short Order
08-12-2022