Mst. AMINA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others
This matter arises from two bail cancellation petitions filed against the order granting bail to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tank. The core legal question is whether bail granted to the accused should be cancelled given the allegations of murder, direct charge, and recovery of crime empties. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail cancellation applications, holding that bail once granted cannot be cancelled normally—especially after the commencement of trial—without strong and exceptional grounds. The Court noted an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, subsequent improvements in naming multiple accused by different family members, and the fact that an eye-witness had resiled, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that strong and exceptional grounds are required for the cancellation of bail, and bail is generally not revoked after the commencement of the trial to avoid prejudicing the proceedings.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report affect a petition for bail cancellation?
- Can bail be cancelled normally after the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced?
- Whether the improvement in naming additional accused by different complainants constitutes a case for further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---This single order will dispose of BCA Nos. 149 and 150 of 2010, as both these petitions have arisen out of one and same case F.I.R.No,457 dated 2-8-2008 of police station Tank registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the respondents are that they in furtherance of common object of their co-accused who have been released on bail had committed the murder of Sher Zaman, son of the complainant Mst. Bakhtawarey wife of Gul Zaman with fire arms.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are directly charged for committing the murder of the deceased in a broad-daylight duly witnessed by Ghulam, the recovery of eight empties from the spot and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that thirteen persons are charged in the case. Initially, the complainant has charged four persons for committing the crime, but later on father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant charged another set of seven accused.
According to him, the eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has also resiled from the statement, therefore, being a case of further inquiry, the respondents were entitled to bail.
5. I have gone through the record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record reveals that the occurrence took place at about 0230 hours while its report was lodged at about 0840 hours and thus there is delay of six hours and ten minutes in making the first report which has not been plausibly explained. The record further reveals that initially six persons were charged for committing the offence but lateron more persons were included in the list of accused by father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant. The statement of eye- witness Ghulam Sarwar discloses that he was not available on the spot. The record also discloses that charge has been framed and trial commenced. In such circumstances, bail cannot be cancelled normally in order to avoid any adverse comments which is likely to effect trial. Reference may be made to 2004 SCM R 231. Otherwise too, strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancellation of bail which are lacking here.
7. Consequently, I find no substance in either of the two bail cancellation applications which are accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Tajbar Khan vs The State & 1 another 2018 PCRLJ 1096, 2018 PHC 1567
- TAJBAR KHAN vs The STATE and another 2018 P Cr. L J 1096