STATE through Advocate-General Northern Areas, Gilgit vs SEWRAG KHAN
This is an application filed by the State through the Advocate-General Northern Areas, Gilgit, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Sewrag Khan by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghizer, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether bail granted by a competent court should be cancelled on the grounds that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause and the lower court wrongly termed the case one of further inquiry, especially when no misuse of bail or tampering with evidence was alleged. The Northern Areas Chief Court held that bail once granted cannot be lightly interfered with, particularly when the trial has already commenced and no allegations of tampering with prosecution evidence or misusing the concession of bail have been established by the State. The key principle laid down is that cancellation of bail at an advanced stage like trial requires strong and exceptional grounds such as tampering with evidence or hampering the proceedings, and in the absence of such misuse, the bail application is to be refused.
- Can bail once granted be cancelled solely on the ground that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Whether the commencement of trial is a relevant factor in refusing an application for cancellation of bail?
- What are the grounds required for the cancellation of bail already granted to an accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghizer vide order, dated 11-5-2005 is heard today.
2. ' The learned Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Haq Nawaz, Advocate, urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law by allowing the bail and also has misconceived the prosecution evidence. He further contended that the accused/respondents have committed murder and the sections for which the accused/respondents have been charged are not bailable and also fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case against the accused/respondents is a simple and clear case of murder having the injured person as eye-witness, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ironically hold the case as of further enquiry and granted the bail. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be cancelled.
3. ' On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused/ respondents resisted the above points raised by the learned Advocate-General and contended that once the accused/respondents had been granted bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction as such the bail could not be cancelled in consideration of the above points raised by the learned Advocate-General. Bail once granted could be cancelled only on very strong and exceptional grounds, like, if it is proved that the accused/respondents have either tried to tamper with the evidence or committed acts of violation against prosecution witnesses and hampered or created obstacles in the way of investigation. He further urged that the challan of the case has been put in the Court and the trial against the accused/respondent is on progress in the Court and at this stage if the bail is cancelled, it would affect the trial on merits.
4. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned Advocate-General and the counsel for the accused/respondents and of the view that since the trial against the accused/respondents has been started in trial Court, therefore, the cancellation of the bail at this stage is unwarranted in law, particularly when the State has not fixed any allegation on the accused/respondents that they have tried to tamper the prosecution witness or misused the concession of bail. Hence the application for cancellation of bail is refused.