Strong grounds are required for cancellation of bail

PLJ 2014 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 137

Present: Malik Manzoor Hussain, J.

Maj. (R) MUHAMMAD HAMAD AHMAD--Petitioner

versus

ZIA-UR-REHMAN and another--Respondents

Cr.Misc. No. (BCA) 1311-P of 2013, decided on 4.11.2013.

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

----S. 497(5)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 382/506/365/511/ 342/148/149--Cancellation of bail--Cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court of jurisdiction, very strong, extraordinary and cogent reasons are required as the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of the same are totally different--Bail granted wrongly can be cured by punishing the accused after the trial but if his guilt is not proved, there cannot be any compensation if a bail is wrongly refused--This is the reason why the Courts are generally reluctant to cancel the bail as the discretion exercised in favour of accused cannot be interfered with unless there are strong and exceptional grounds warranting interference--No perversity was found in the impugned order and no exceptional circumstances has been brought to the notice of the Court--No case for cancellation of bail was made out--Mere nomination of accused in the FIR would not disentitle him from the relief of bail if otherwise, he was entitled for the concession of the same--As per record the respondent/accused was a government servant and there were no chances of his abscondence--Furthermore, the accused has not been shown to have misused the concession of bail--Petition dismissed.       [P. 139] A

Mr. Saif Ullah Khalil, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 4.11.2013.

Order

Through instant application, the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granting order dated 19.09.2013, passed by learned Addl: Sessions Judge-XI, Peshawar whereby the Respondent No. 1 was released on bail, in case FIR No. 956 dated 09.09.2013, u/Ss. 382/506/365/511/342/148/ 149, PPC, P.S. Hayatabad, Peshawar.

2.  As per contents of FIR, the petitioner/complainant, on the strength of written application dated 5.9.2013 lodged a report against the Respondent No. 1 for committing offence under the provisions of law mentioned above.

3.  The respondent moved an application for bail before arrest, which was allowed vide order dated 19.09.2013, hence the instant petition for cancellation of the same.

4.  Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the Respondent No. 1 is directly charged in the FIR and a specific role has been attributed to him. He further contended that no mala fide or ulterior motive on behalf of petitioner/prosecution has been pointed out in the application as well as in the bail granting order. Thus the same is against the settled principle laid down by the Superior Courts. He further contended that co-accused are still absconder and the respondent is also required for investigation/interrogation and the offence for which the respondent is charged are of heinous nature and also comes within the definition of moral turpitude. Thus the respondent was not entitled for extra-ordinary relief.

Arguments heard and with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for petitioner, the record perused.

5.  From the perusal of record, it reveals that the occurrence was allegedly taken place on 3.9.2013 and as per application of complainant, the local police came to spot on that very day but astonishingly the report was lodged on 6.9.2013 with an unexplained delay of 3 days. There is a dispute between the parties and the occurrence took place at the office of respondent/accused. It is yet to be determined at the trial that who was aggressor and who has been aggressed upon, so far there is no independent witness who has narrated in support of the allegations levelled by the complainant. The District Public Prosecutor has directed the prosecution agency to complete the investigation within 14 days and ensure submission of challan but so far two months have been lapsed and not a single step has been taken by the prosecution to submit challan. No recovery has been effected from the respondent/accused and he has not been nominated by independent PWs and only there are vague allegations against the unknown persons.

6.  It is by now well settled that for cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court of jurisdiction, very strong, extraordinary and cogent reasons are required as the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of the same are totally different. Bail granted wrongly can be cured by punishing the accused after the trial but if his guilt is not proved, there cannot be any compensation if a bail is wrongly refused. This is the reason why the Courts are generally reluctant to cancel the bail as the discretion exercised in favour of accused cannot be interfered with unless there are strong and exceptional grounds warranting interference. No perversity was found in the impugned order and no exceptional circumstances has been brought to the notice of the Court. No case for cancellation of bail is made out. Mere nomination of accused in the FIR would not disentitle him from the relief of bail if otherwise, he was entitled for the concession of the same. As per record the respondent/accused is a government servant and there are no chances of his abscondence. Furthermore, the accused has not been shown to have misused the concession of bail.

Under the circumstances, the instant petition being devoid of any force, is dismissed in limine.

(A.S.)   Petition dismissed