M. RASHID vs SHAH MUHAMMAD
This criminal petition was filed seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the respondent was nominated in the FIR with a specific role, the offense fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the respondent had misused the concession of bail by issuing threats. The High Court examined the trial court's order, noting that the investigation attributed no overt act of injury to the respondent, who was over 69 years old, thereby qualifying for consideration under the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that once bail is granted via discretionary power, cancellation requires special circumstances and substantial evidence of misuse, which the petitioner failed to provide beyond a self-serving affidavit. Consequently, finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court's discretion, the High Court dismissed the petition for bail cancellation.
- What are the requirements for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a trial court?
- Does the age of an accused constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail under the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a self-serving affidavit by a petitioner sufficient evidence to prove the misuse of bail by an accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail allowed to Respondent No, 1 vide order dated 05.10.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni in case F.I.R. No, 256/2009 dated 16.08.2009 under Sections 302, 148, 149 P.P.C. Police Station Kassowal, District Chichawatni.
2. Briefly the allegation as per FIR against the accused/Respondent No, 1 is that one Muhammad Ameen co-accused with the petitioner inflicted Churri blow to deceased who fell on the grounds.
The petitioner while armed with Gun raised Lalkara that if anyone came near he will not be spare.
After that the co-accused of the petitioner picked-up injured thrown in the house of Mst. Sobia.
3. After registration of the case, accused Respondent No, 1 filed his post-arrest bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chichawatni, who vide order dated 05.10.2009 granted post-arrest bail to the accused/Respondent No, 1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of accused Respondent No, 1, submitting that impugned order dated 15.10.2009 is illegal void and without lawful authority and is liable to he set aside; that learned trial Court has allowed bail to Shah Muhammad accused ignoring the basic principle for grant of bail as laid down by the superior Courts; accused Respondents No, 1 is nominated in the prompt FIR with specific role attributed to him; punishment for offence under Section 302 PPC falls under the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C; accused Respondent No, 1 had failed to prove that his case is a case of further inquiry; case of the accused Respondent No, 1 is not covered under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C, as there arc no circumstances, which makes his case for further inquiry; accused Respondent No, 1 after releasing on bail causing threats of dire consequences, therefore, he mis-used the concession of bail, therefore, the petition for cancellation of post-arrest bail may be accepted.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned bail granting order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chichawatni.
6. Learned trial Court rightly observed that in the investigation it was found that petitioner only asked the other co-accused to remove the dead body from the place of occurrence and to throw- drop it in the house of Mst. Sobia. It is also observed that Respondent No, 1 accused Shah Muhammad is of the age of more than 69 years, so, his ease is also covered under the proviso of section 497 Cr.P.0 being person of old age and infirm person. No overact of causing any injury to the body of the deceased is attributed to the Respondent No, 1 accused as is revealed in the bail granting order. Consideration for grant of post arrest and pre arrest bail are entirely different. Once bail is granted after exercising discretionary power, for cancellation of the same special circumstances are required. There is not an iota of evidence that the Respondents No, 14 accused misused the concession of bail allowed by the learned trial Court except the affidavit of the petitioner himself in support of contentions that concession of bail was misused. There is no affidavit of any independent witness, hence, in these circumstances, I would not like to interfere in the impugned order elated 15.10.2009. There is no ground for cancellation of the bail, hence, the post-arrest bail granted by the learned trial Court is remained intact.
7. Resultantly, this petition for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed.