SHAHBAZ ALI vs SHAHBAZ SARFRAZ and another
This matter arises from a petition seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in relation to F.I.R. No. 353 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the bail granted on grounds relating to signature comparison and the necessity of a Magistrate's permission for non-cognizable offences, as well as the principles governing the cancellation of bail already granted. The Lahore High Court held that while the grounds relied upon by the lower court regarding the necessity of a Magistrate's permission were legally incorrect, bail once granted should not be recalled absent exceptional grounds or misuse of the concession of bail, as long as the accused has not misused such liberty. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the principle that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than its initial grant and requires exceptional circumstances.
- Whether permission of the Magistrate is required when cognizable and non-cognizable offences under the Pakistan Penal Code are applied together?
- What are the grounds required for the cancellation of post-arrest bail once it has been granted?
- Does the absence of a misuse of bail concession preclude the cancellation of bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.-- The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of respondent No,1 which was granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his order, dated 3-2-2006 in F.I.R. No,353, dated 19-8-2005. The said F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Samanabad, Lahore under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. The allegation against the respondent was that he prepared in collusion with co-accused Muhammad Aamar, Muhammad Nawaz and Ch. Bilal Ahmad a forged document to sell.
3. According to 'the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted post-arrest bail against the law and facts of the case. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-- "From the perusal of record and above discussed facts, it reveals that prima facie no authenticated document bearing the signatures of allegedly executant has been sent for comparison. The factum of non-issuance of stamp paper as alleged by the complainant is matter of record and can be decided during trial. The offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable while offence under sections 468 and 471 is not cognizable which requires permission by the Illaqa Magistrate and no such permission has been sought for to take up the investigation."
4. I have heard the learned counsel and also perused the record The above mentioned three grounds which won favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge are neither, factually nor legally correct. The record shows that duly authenticated papers were sent for the comparison of the signatures. Similarly, sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Were applied along with section 420, P.P.C. In such cases, where cognizable and non-cognizable offences are applied together or provisions of Pakistan Penal Code are attracted together no permission of the Magistrate is required. 2004 PCr.L.J387.
5. However, there is no complaint that the respondent has misused the concession of bail. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly observed that once a bail is granted, it should be recalled only on exceptional grounds and it also amounts converting acquittal into conviction. Thus, this bail application to recall order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 3-2-2006 is dismissed.