KHALID IQBAL vs THE STATE and otherss
This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, on the grounds of non-recovery of stolen articles and recommendations by a police officer. The core legal question concerns whether the bail granted by the lower court suffered from any illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness warranting interference by the High Court, and whether grounds existed for bail cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that the subordinate court committed no illegality, noting the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the omission of respondent No. 2's name in the initial application, and the distinct considerations applicable to the grant versus cancellation of bail, alongside the absence of any misuse of the concession. The court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that considerations for granting and cancelling bail are distinct and that strong grounds such as misuse of concession or perversity are required for cancellation.
- Whether considerations for the grant and cancellation of bail are distinct?
- Does a delay of several months in lodging the F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- Can bail once granted be cancelled without showing that the accused has misused the concession?
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide order, dated 18-5-2006 inter alia on the grounds that the articles allegedly stolen by the said respondent had yet to be recovered and that the DSP Joharabad, who had lastly investigated the case, had directed the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of bail of the said respondent.
2. I have perused the F.I.R. And the orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The bail to respondent No. 2 was granted by the learned Judge holding that there was a delay of 7/8 months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that name of respondent No.2, the father of main accused Amir whose bail was declined by the same order, was not mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioner for the registration of the case and that he could have been involved by the complainant due to ulterior motives. A perusal of the F.I.R. Also reveals that the main thrust of allegations is against Amir accused the son of the said respondent.
3. The learned subordinate Court has not committed any illegality as the conclusions drawn by the learned Court cannot be termed as unrealistic. Even otherwise the considerations for grant and cancellation of bail are quite distinct and the learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the learned Court requiring interference by this Court. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 after the grant of bail has misused the concession in any manner.
4. Resultantly, this petition has no force which is dismissed inlimine.