2026 M L D 268
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Najam -ud-Din Mengal, J
NASEEBULLAH ---Applicant
Versus
NAQEEBULLAH and another ---Respondents
Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 05 of 2025, decided on 21st May, 2025. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(5) ---Bail, cancellation of ---Principles ---Once bail is granted by a Court of
competent jurisdiction than very strong reasons are required for its cancellation--- Court
has to see whether the accused after having been released on bail is misusing the
concession of bail or creating hindrance for the complainant party or due to the release of the accused the lives of the prosecution witnesses or complainant are at risk and that the accused is tempering with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(5) ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 506(2), 504& 34---Qatl -i-amd,
attempt to commit qatl -i-amd, criminal intimidation, with intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of the peace, common intention---Application for cancellation of bail,
dismissal of ---Perusal of impugned orders reflected that the Court below on the basis of
tentative assessment of material available on record had rightly granted bail to the
respondent (accused) as the innocence or guilt of the accused were yet to be ascertained -
--Merely, the offences being heinous in nature is no ground to withhold the concession
of bail, when otherwise there appeared to be a good prima -facie case for grant of bail ---
Trial had been commenced and the respondent (accused) were making their appearance, whereas the Trial Court had already obtained sufficient surety from the respondents (accused) ---Hence, at that stage no need to interfere in the bail granting order of the
Trial Court ---Application for cancellation of bail was rejected, in circumstances.
Zaigham v. The State 2016 SCMR 18 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277 rel.
Jamil Ahmed Babai for Applicant.
Yahyha Baloch, APG for the State.
Shahid Javed Nagi and Qaim Khan Khakar for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th May, 2025.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UD-DIN MENGAL, J .---This order disposes of Criminal Bail
Cancellation Application No.05 of 2025 filed by the applicant Naseebullah son of Abdul Ali,
against the bail granting orders dated 23rd September 2024 and 26th December 2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, whereby accused (respondents) were granted bail in FIR No.09 of 2024, dated 16th June 2024 of Levies Station Saranan, District Pishin, under Sections 302, 324, 427, 506(2), 504, 34, P.P.C lodged on the complaint of Hikmatullah son of Abdul Ali with the history that respondents (accused) launched attack upon his brother Naseebullah (applicant) by means of fire arms, which resulted into the murder of his nephew Sarwan Khan.
2. In pursuance uance of above FIR, the respondents (accused) approached the learned trial
Court by means of filing separate applications for grant of pre -arrest bail and bail after arrest,
which were allowed, vide impugned orders dated 23rd September 2024 and 26th December
2024. Whereafter the applicant has filed the instant application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused (respondent).
3. Learned counsel for applicant (complainant) argued that the learned trial Court while
delivering the bail granting orders has not considered this important aspect of the case that the respondents (accused) have been charged with an offence, which is not only non- bailable, but
also carries punishment for death or life imprisonment; that FIR has been lodged promptly by nominating the respondents (accused) with specific role of firing upon the applicant and his minor son, which resulted into murder of his minor; that the learned trial Court has relied upon the plea of alibi taken by the respondent (accused), while discarded the direct ocular evidence; that at bail stage the plea of alibi cannot be considered, while contrary to the same, the learned trial Court has considered the plea of alibi taken by the respondent (accused); that the inadvertently the date of incident has been mentioned in the FIR as 16th March 2024 instead of 16th June 2024, whereas the entire record transpires the incident has taken place on 16th June 2024, subsequently the same clerical error was corrected in the challan and other record, but the learned trial Court while delivering impugned orders has mis -read the date of incident and made
some observations regarding merits of the case, which observations amounts to decision of the
case at pre- mature stage, hence prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents
(accused).
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. At bail stage,
only the tentative assessment of the record is to be considered and deeper appreciation of
evidence is not permissible. It is a well settled principle of law that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction than very strong reasons are required for its cancellation. The
Court has to see whether the accused after release on bail are misusing the concession of bail or creating hindrance for the complainant party or due to the release of the accused the lives of the prosecution witnesses or complainant are at risk and that the accused are tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
5. Besides, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that plea of alibi cannot
be considered at bail stage, while I am not in agreement with the learned counsel in respect of assessment of plea of alibi at bail stage as there is no any rule that plea of alibi should not be taken into consideration, while reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled as "Zaigham v. The State, 2016 SCMR 18, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"6. There is no hard and fast rule that plea of alibi shall not be considered at bail stage
because while granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, the Court is not required to see and consider the materials/evidence, collected in favour of the Prosecution but also to give proper attention to the defence plea, taken by an accused person.
9. To curtail the liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore, the Judges shall
apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively however, this exercise shall not to be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy and casual manner as that will defeat the ends of justice because if the accused charged, is ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation can be awarded to him for the long incarceration, as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the scheme of law on the subject do not provide for such arrangements to repair the loss, caused to an accused person, detaining him in Jail without just cause and reasonable ground. Therefore, extraordinary care and caution shall be exercised by the Judges in the course of granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, charged for offence(s), punishable with capital punishment. The Courts are equally required to make tentative assessment with pure judicial approach of all the materials available on record, whether it goes in favour of the Prosecution or in favour of the defence before making a decision.
10. In the case of Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277) it was held that, "for purposes of
bail, law not to be stretched in favour of prosecution- Benefit of doubt, if any arising, must go to
accused even on bail stage." Similar view was taken in the case of Manzoor v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81). These principles so laid down, are based on enunciation of law in interpreting the provision of section 497, Cr.P. C. and broader principle of justice. Till date, no departure or deviation has been made therefrom by this Court then, these are the principles of law and have
binding effect and shall be construed as guiding principles by all the Courts in the matter of grant
or refusal of bail.
6. The guidelines of the Hon'ble apex Court made it crystal clear that the plea of alibi can be
taken and considered at the bail stage, when there is nothing to suggest that the confirmation of the alibi is doubtful.
7. Even otherwise, the perusal of impugned orders reflect that the learned Court below on
the basis of tentative assessment of material available on record has rightly granted bail to the
respondent (accused) as the innocence or guilt of the accused are yet to be ascertained. Merely, the offences of being heinous in nature is no ground to withhold the concession of bail, when otherwise there appears to be a good prima -facie case for grant of bail. The trial has been
commenced and the respondent (accused) are making their appearance, whereas already the trial Court has obtained sufficient surety from the respondents (accused), hence at this stage I am not inclined to interfere in the bail granting order of the trial Court. It is suffice to mention here that the reliance so taken by the learned counsel for the applicant on the citations are altogether distinguish from the scenario of the instant case, thus same are not helpful to the applicant.
For the above reasons, the application for cancellation of bail is rejected. However, the
applicant/complainant party is at liberty to move a fresh application for cancellation of bail of the respondents (accused) before the learned trial Court as and when the ingredients as mentioned above are available to the complainant party during trial of the case.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the
merits of the case at the trial.
JK/69/Bal. Application dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.