Art. 156-D--Police torture--Bail cancellation, dismissal of--Allegation against the respondent/ Police official is that he alongwith co-accused persons forcibly took the petitioner and subject to physical torture-

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 278
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Shakil Ahmad. J.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3036-CB of 2022, decided on 7.6.2022.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(5)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365/342/337L--Police Order, 2002 (10 of 2002), Art. 156-D--Police torture--Bail cancellation, dismissal of--Allegation against the respondent/ Police official is that he alongwith co-accused persons forcibly took the petitioner and subject to physical torture--There is no mention the names of the witnesses in whose presence an amount was given--I.O. opined that allegation qua abduction of the petitioner was not substantiated and S. 365, PPC was deleted--No material irregularity that may justify to take any exception to the impugned order--No case of cancellation of bail is made out--petition dismissed.     [Para 2 & 4] A, B & C

Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.

Malik Mudassir Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Rana Muhammad Nadeem Sheraz, Advocate with Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 7.6.2022.

Order

Instant application has been filed by Muhammad Akram (petitioner herein) seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Sheikh Aftab Ahmad (Respondent No. 2 herein) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide order dated 15.03.2022 in case FIR No. 17/2022 dated 19.01.2022 registered under Sections 365, 342, 337L(2) of, PPC. Article 156-D of the Police Order, 2022 at police station Okanwala Bangla, District Sahiwal.

2. Allegation, in a nutshell, against Respondents No. 2 is that he along with his co-accused persons forcibly took petitioner to an unknown Dera and subjected to physical torture and subsequently released him after getting bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his brother in presence of PWs.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record so annexed with the petition perused.

4. Allegation qua demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the release of petitioner, on the face of it, is vague and general in nature. Similarly, there is no mentioning of the names of any PWs in whose presence an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to Respondent No. 2 for the release of petitioner. Upon conclusion of investigation I.O opined that allegation qua abduction on the petitioner was not substantiated and Section 365 of, PPC was deleted. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to Respondent No. 2 committed no material irregularity that may justify to take any exception to the impugned order. When bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of justifiable grounds, the same cannot be recalled unless the same has been granted in capricious manner without assigning any reason or on the basis of perverse on invalid reasons but the same was not the case in the instant matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to point out any inherent flaw in the impugned order. No case of taking any exception to the impugned order at all is made out.

5. For the reasons recorded above, no case on cancellation of bail at all is made out, hence instant petition is dismissed.

(M.A.B.)         Petition dismissed