ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and another
This criminal application was filed by the complainant under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent had been accused of offences under Sections 365-B and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously granted bail after determining that the respondent did not participate in the alleged abduction, noting that the alleged abductee had consistently identified the respondent as her husband in various legal documents, including a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misuse of the bail concession or provide evidence of special circumstances warranting cancellation. The court held that the considerations for granting bail differ significantly from those for cancellation, and since the trial court exercised its discretion appropriately and no misuse was alleged, there were no grounds for interference. Consequently, the petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed by the High Court.
- Are the considerations for the grant of bail the same as those for the cancellation of bail?
- Is a showing of misuse of the bail concession required for the cancellation of bail once granted by a trial court?
- Can a High Court interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion in granting bail absent special circumstances?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this criminal application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.
Petitioner Ashiq Hussain son of Bachu Khan, who is complainant of F.I.R. No,241 dated 9-7-2009, registered with Police Station Sanawan, District Muzaffargarh, for offences under section 365-B and 366, P.P.C., seeks cancellation of bail of respondent No,2 Saifullah alias Kala, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu, vide order dated 26-6-2009.
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the post-arrest bail granting order thoroughly discussed the facts of the case and allowed post-arrest bail to him on merits. The learned trial Court observed that the respondent-accused did not participate in the alleged abduction. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was pending before the Judge, Family Court. Copies of suit for restitution of conjugal rights, affidavit of Meena Bibi, judgment and decree dated 8-7-2009, private complaint titled Meena Bibi v. Mithoo Khan and her statement before the Area Magistrate were produced by the respondent. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in all the said documents the alleged abductee Mst. Meena Bibi admitted Saifullah respondent No,2, as her husband. Photo copy of the Nikahnamas between Rashid Khan and Mst. Abida Parveen and the other between Meena Bibi and the respondent were also produced before the Court.
3. Once the learned trial Court has exercised the discretion of granting bail to the accused, thereafter for withdrawal of the same concession special circumstances are required. Learned counsel for the petitioner badly failed to point out any stance of miscue of the concession of the relief of bail by the respondent. In the cancellation of bail petition it is not averred that respondent No,2 misused the same nor any affidavit of any independent witness about the misuse of the said concession by respondent No,2 is attached with this petition. Considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail are entirely different.
4. I see no ground to interfere in the bail granting order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, this petition fails, the same is dismissed.