MUNIR AHMAD SAIFI vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL and 6 others
This criminal petition was filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the lower court in case FIR No. 618 dated 14.6.2006 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the grounds that incriminating material was ignored and the respondents were not entitled to relief. The Lahore High Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The court reasoned that the respondents had been declared innocent in successive police investigations up to the level of the SSP, mala fide of the complainant was established, and no recovery was to be made from the respondents. The key principle laid down is that considerations for the grant and cancellation of bail differ, requiring strong exceptional grounds—such as a patently illegal order or misuse of concession—to cancel bail once validly granted, as Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not punitive in nature.
- What are the grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been validly granted?
- Whether Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is punitive in nature?
- Does the finding of innocence in successive police investigations justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted by the learned lower Court to the respondents vide order dated 27.6.2006 in case FIR No. 618 dated 14.6.2006 for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC registered at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents in connivance with the Patwari Halqa deprived the complainant of his land measuring 9 Kanals 7 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 2111, 2112 by showing a bogus exchange of property.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned lower Court extended the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail to the respondents which could only be granted to innocent persons and by no stretch of imagination could the respondents be considered as innocent in the case; that sufficient incriminating material was available on the record which was overlooked by the learned Court; that no civil litigation was pending between the parties at the time of grant of bail by the learned Court and that the case of the petitioner was not one of further enquiry, hence the impugned order was liable to be recalled.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the investigation in the case was conducted at the local level in which the respondents were declared innocent. The DSP as well as S.P. Investigation concurred with the opinion of the investing officer and cancellation report was prepared on 7.9.2006. On the application of the complainant the matter went upto the SSP Investigation who also declared the respondents innocent and held that the case against the respondents was of no evidence. Civil litigation was pending between the parties at that time. Further, the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders, hence the bail granting order did not call for interference.
5. I have heard the-learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have been declared innocent in successive investigations by the police and report for cancellation of FIR was also prepared on 7.9.2006. The matter was investigated right up to the level of SSP on the applications filed by the complainant who opined that the case against the respondents was false and fabricated. The learned trial Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 497, 498 Cr.P.C. was fully justified in extending the extraordinary concession of bail to the respondents particularly as mala fide of the complainant had been established and nothing had to be recovered from the possession of the respondents.
7. Even otherwise the consideration for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different and strong exceptional grounds would be required for canceling the bail once it has been validly granted by the learned lower Court. The provisions of Section 497 sub-section (5) Cr.P.C. are not punitive in nature and there is no compulsion for canceling the bail, unless the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or where the respondents are found to be making efforts to misuse the concession of bail by extending threats or tampering with the prosecution case.
8. In the instant case the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or infirmity referred to above in the impugned order.
9. In view of the above discussion this petition being without merit is dismissed.