2020 Y L R 1451
[Balocshitan]
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J
MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR---Applicant
Versus
BAHAUDDIN and another ---Respondents
Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 448 of 2019, decided on 7th November, 2019.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(5) ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 109---Dacoity and abetment ---Petition
for cancellation of bail --- Scope --- Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to accused
who along with his companions was alleged to have alighted the uncle of complainant from
vehicle and took it away---Held; bail granted by court of competent jurisdiction could not be
recalled/cancelled until and unless exceptional grounds were established ---Petitioner had
failed to point out that after release on bai l, the accused had misused the concession of bail ---
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 and Nasir Khan v. Waseel Gul 2011
SCMR 710 rel.
Yasir Hayat for Applicant.
Akhian Gul Kakar for Respondent No.1.
Abdul Karim Malghani, State Counsel.
Date of hearing: 4th November, 2019.
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J .---The applicant/complainant filed an application
under section 497(5) Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail of private respondent with the prayer:
"In view of the above it is, therefore, accordingly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to declare the impugned bail granting order dated 3.8.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchlak as illegal, unlawful, hence set it aside/ cancel it accordingly, and in the consequences thereof the accused/ respondent No. 01 be taken into arrest, in the interest of equity, fair play and justice."
2. The complainant registered FIR No. 50 of 2019, under sections 395, 109 Pak istan
Penal Code (P.P.C.) with Police Station Kuchlak, on 1st July 2019, with the allegations that
the accused along with his companions duly armed with weapons alighted the uncle of the complainant from dumper vehicle No. TUC 143; tied him and forcibly took away the dumper vehicle. On this report the accused/ respondent No. 1 was arrested and after completion of
investigation shifted to judicial custody.
3. After judicial remand the accused/respondent No. 1 moved application for his release
on bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchlak, who after hearing arguments allowed the
same vide order dated 3rd August 2019, hence the complainant being aggrieved of the same filed instant application for cancellation of bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as State Counsel and also gone
through the available record. It is well entrenched by law that when bail has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction the same cannot be recalled/ cancelled until and unless exceptional grounds are e stablished. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out
that after release on bail the accused/ respondent has misused the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on case law Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202. The August Court has laid down the law to the following affairs:
6. It needs no reiteration that considerations for the grant of bail are quite distinct from the consideration for cancellation of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law strong and exceptional g rounds are required for cancelling the
same, as held by this Court on a number of occasions….."
5. The mere fact that two opinions, one positive on basis of tentative assessment of
evidence would not be sufficient for cancellation of bail. Reliance is plac ed on Nasir Khan v.
Waseel Gul 2011 SCMR 710.
"----and held that main consideration for grant of bail under subsection (2) of section
497, Cr.P.C. is that if the Court on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence, form an opinion that prima facie ther e were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
has not committed an offence with which he was being charged he would be allowed bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. as of right."
In view of the above, I find no merit in the appl ication which is hereby dismissed.
These are the reasons of short order made on 4th November, 2019.
SA/154/Bal. Petition 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.