INAM ULAH BAIG vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 3 others
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in respect of a case registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents should be recalled on grounds of alleged forgery and improper exercise of discretion by the lower court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application, holding that strong and exceptional grounds are required to recall bail once granted, and noting the inordinate delay by the petitioner in approaching the court, the pendency of civil litigation, the submission of the challan rendering physical custody unnecessary, and the fact that the prosecution already possessed the questioned documents. The key principle laid down is that the cancellation of bail requires compelling circumstances, and bail cannot be revoked merely to satisfy the complainant's vendetta or when investigation purposes no longer require custody.
- Whether pre-arrest bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
- Does the submission of a challan and possession of questioned documents by the prosecution obviate the need for physical custody in a bail cancellation matter?
- Can a complainant seek the cancellation of bail at any time according to their whim and convenience despite long delays?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application, Inamullah Baig petitioner has sought cancellation of pre arrest bail granted in favour of Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 22.5.2007, in the case F.I.R. No, 153/2007 dated 9.4.2007, registered on the statement of the petitioner, in respect of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C., at Police Station Manawan, Lahore.
2. Precise allegation against Respondents Nos, 1 to 3, as per the F.I.R., is that of preparing a forged document in connivance with each other. After being arrested, the said respondents sought pre arrest bail in the case which was allowed vide the afore-referred order.
3. Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted in favour of the said respondents by moving application under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who had granted bail in their favour, however, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2007.
4. In support of this hail cancellation application, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the concession of pre arrest bail was granted in favour of Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Murad, Khan vs. Fazal-e-Subhan and another (PLD 1983 SC 82) and Zia-ulHassan vs. The State (PLD 1984 SC 192) and that during the pendency of the investigation of this case, the questioned documents were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which reported that the said documents bore forged signatures of the said respondents, therefore, extraordinary concession of pre arrest bail in favour of Respondents Nos, 1 to 3, is liable to be withdrawn.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length but do not seeeye to eye-with him.
Admittedly, the pre arrest bail was granted in favour of Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 a way back on 22.5.2007 i,e, (1/2) year ago. Even the application for cancellation of bail before arrest was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.7.2007 but the petitioner kept mum for a period of more than 1 1/4 year. The right of moving cancellation of bail cannot be availed by the complainant according to his whim and convenience. Similarly, bail cannot be cancelled merely to satisfy the vendetta of the complainant. Admittedly, civil litigation regarding the cancellation of the questioned documents is pending adjudication between the parties. It is also an admitted fact that the F.I.R was lodged against the respondents after six years of the alleged occurrence. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that after completion of investigation, the challan of this case has already been submitted. The documents appended with this application indicate that the documents allegedly forged by the respondents are already in possession of the prosecution, therefore, physical custody of Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 is not required for the investigation purposes. Furthermore, the principles for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are quite different. Once the bail is granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction then strong and exceptional grounds are required to recall the same. It is true that for the grant of pre arrest bail, certain conditions have to be fulfilled, but at the same time it is also true that while deciding bail before arrest application, the Court cannot be oblivious of the merits of the case. In. this regard reliance is placed on Meeran Bux v. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC 347).
6. For what has been discussed above, this application finds no merit, therefore, the same is dismissed.