Mst. SHAREEFAN BIBI vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others
This is a criminal petition filed by the complainant for the cancellation of pre-trial or post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in respect of a case registered under sections 452, 354 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the bail granted by the lower court was arbitrary, capricious, or merits cancellation based on established legal principles governing the revocation of bail. The Lahore High Court held that no grounds exist for the cancellation of bail, noting an unexplained delay of nearly two months in lodging the First Information Report, the fact that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the respondents were empty-handed at the time of the occurrence, and there was previous enmity between the parties. The court reaffirmed the guiding principles and exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail already granted by a competent court of law, ultimately dismissing the petition in limine.
- What are the guiding principles and grounds for the cancellation of bail already granted by a subordinate court?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR weigh against the cancellation of bail?
- Whether bail can be cancelled when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused were empty-handed during the alleged occurrence?
- What kind of grounds are required for setting aside a bail order passed by a competent court?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is a petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order, dated 12-3-2005 in case F.I.R. No,27 of 2005 dated 15- 2-2005 registered under sections 452/354/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Qadirpur Rawan District Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the present respondents as per prosecution story is that on 19- 12-2004 they made a tresspass when Mst. Sharifan complainant and Mst. Manzooran were available in their house and tried to abduct Mst. Sharifan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents Nos.1 and 2 attempted to abduct the petitioner as well as Mst. Manzooran Mai and her children but the learned Court below ignored this very aspect of the case and allowed tail to respondents. That the bail granting order is arbitrary, capricious and against the law and facts of the case.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is unexplained delay of one month and 26 days in lodging the F.I.R. And case of the respondents does not fall within prohibitory clause. At the time of occurrence the respondents had been shown empty- handed, while perusing the bail granting order impugned in this petition it has been found that there was previous enmity between the parties and due to this reason case was registered against the respondents/ accused.
5. ' Considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. The superior Courts have laid down guiding principles for the subordinate Courts to cancel bail granted to an accused if:-
(i) Bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it;
(ii) the accused on bail commits the same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted;
(iii) the accused on bail hampers the investigation;
(iv) the accused on bail tampers with evidence;
(v) the accused absconds after grant of bail;
(vi) the accused got bail on the basis of false averments regarding his age or illness, etc;
(vii) the accused was implicated as the principal offender in several cases which badly affect the society at large such as in the case of heroin smuggling; (viii)grant of bail to an accused has become a foundation of revenge against complainant party, prosecution or the witnesses;
(ix) bail order of the Subordinate Court was devoid of reasoning while granting bail and facts of case were fully implicating the accused for attracting S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
' The above said principles have been referred to in Muhammad Ramzan Taj Muhammad and another 1996 PCr.L.J 2006. Strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation of bail when bail is granted by a competent Court, reliance in this behalf is placed upon Bashir Ahmad v. Mirza Muhammad Ayub 1991 M LD 579.
6. No ground exists for cancellation of bail. This petition being IC devoid of force is dismissed in limine.