Saeed Khan vs Said Khan
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in relation to F.I.R. No. 22/2008 registered at Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang. The core legal question concerned whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the grounds of trespass, injuries, and the prior dismissal of a bail application due to non-appearance. The Lahore High Court held that no case for bail cancellation was made out, observing that the specific injury attributed to the complainant was assigned to a co-accused rather than the respondents, that certain sections were deleted during investigation, that there was a ten-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., and that the lower court properly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction without perversity. The key principle laid down is that the principles governing the cancellation of bail are in pari materia with the principles applicable to interfering in an appeal against an acquittal.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled when no overt act or injury is attributed to the respondents?
- Are the principles for cancellation of bail para-materia with the principles for interfering in an appeal against acquittal?
- Does a delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.R. impact the continuation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Saeed Khan petitioner who is complainant of case F.I.R. No. 22/2008, dated.25.1.2008 registered with Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang under Sections 440, 337- A(iii)7'148 and149, P.P.C, has filed this petition seeking cancellation of bail before arrest granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide order datedl4.3.2008
2. According to the prosecution on 15.1.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. Petitioner/complainant was present in his house when all of sudden Abdullah armed with Kassi, Said Khan, Sarfraz armed with Sotas, Riaz armed with gun and Ghulam Ali entered in the land owned by complainant, thereafter Abdullah respondent started damaging the Barseen Crops and digging the land for making drain for which the complainant reprimanded them but the accused did not stop and remained busy in digging the drain, it is also alleged that the complainant went toward Abdullah and tried to caught hold his Kassi, but the accused Ghulam Ali caught hold him and Sarfraz inflicted Sota blow on his head, In the meanwhile, witnesses attracted to the spot and got released the petitioner/complainant from the clutches of the accused.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused/respondents not only trespassed into the land of the complainant but also caused him injuries. He further submits that earlier to the acceptance of pre-arrest bail application of the respondents, Said Khan and Riaz Khan petitioners moved pre-arrest bail application before the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed to their absence and non- submission of bail bonds on 22.2.2008 and thus the respondents were not entitled to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the bail granting order and submits that no overt-act has been attributed to the present respondents and there is only one injury on the person of complainant Said Khan which has been attributed to Sarfraz co- accused of the present respondents. Learned D.P.G, in view of the police findings has not supported the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find that Sections 440, 148 and 149, P.P.C, were deleted during the investigation while rest of the offences only offence mentioned in the F.I.R, i.e. 337-A(i), P.P.C, is bailable. However, in view of the nature of injury, the same has been substituted with Section 337-A(iii) during the investigation, which is non-bailable.
The said injury has been ascribed to Sarfraz co-accused of the present petitioner. No injury on the person of the injured PW has been attributed to the present respondents and there is also a delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.R. Discretionary jurisdiction has been exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents and there is no perversity in bail granting order. Principles for cancellation of bail are para-materia with the principles for interfering in appeal against acquittal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, no case for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang is made out. Therefore, this petitions is dismissed.
Bail cancellation, .