AMANULLAH vs ALAMZEB and 3 others
This criminal matter arises from a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant Amanullah seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Alamzeb by the lower courts in case F.I.R. No. 11 dated 9-1-2005 registered at Police Station Matta under sections 324, 435 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether bail was properly granted to an accused directly nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with a specific role of firing causing injury, falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondent was not entitled to bail as he was directly charged with a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause and the mere assertion of further inquiry without legal basis does not justify bail. The petition was accepted, the bail was cancelled, and the respondent was ordered to be taken into custody.
- Whether bail can be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused is directly nominated with a specific role of firing in a promptly lodged F.I.R.?
- Does a case being labeled as one of further inquiry without legal basis automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Alamzeb respondent stands involved along with others in case F.I.R. No,11 dated 9-1-2005, registered at Police Station Matta under sections 324/435/34, P.P.C. at the instance of complainant Amanullah. The precise allegations against the respondent are that he fired with his kalashnikov, as a result of which the complainant sustained injury on the nose. The respondent and his accomplices moved an application before Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Qazi, Matta, Swat for their release on bail, who vide order, dated 23-2-2005 granted bail to the respondent and his companion Muhammad Zamin, but declined the same to Momin Khan. Feeling 'aggrieved the complainant, moved the Court of Session for cancellation of bail, but the same was rejected vide order, dated 7-3-2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Matta, Swat.
2. The complainant has filed instant application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent per the impugned order dated 23-2-2005.
3. I have heard at length the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on file.
4. The respondent is one of the accused persons directly nominated in the promptly lodged report for the commission of crime. A specific role of firing has been attributed to him which has culminated in injuries to the complainant. The sections of law for which respondent is charged, are non-bailable and fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Needless to emphasize that. grant of bail is a discretionary relief which can only be extended to the accused person about whom the Court is satisfied that he is not connected with the commission of the offence at all.
Merely, on the ground that the case of the accused is of further inquiry without any legal basis would not mean that the accused should be released on bail. Every case, more or less, is of further inquiry which does not mean that every accused should be extended the concession of bail.
Sardar Munir Ahmad Dogar v. The State PLD 2004 SC 822.
Pursuant to above, this Court is of the prima facie view that the respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail. The application is accepted and resultantly the bail granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby withdrawn and he shall be taken into custody, to be dealt with in accordance with law.