MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE and 3 others
This petition was filed seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, in a case registered under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that the respondents misappropriated funds following the death of a business associate. Conversely, the respondents contended that they were falsely implicated due to suspicion and that they operated independent businesses. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to warrant the cancellation of the bail already granted to the accused. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents were implicated based on suspicion and that false involvement could not be ruled out. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial had already commenced and the charge had been framed. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that bail, once granted, should only be cancelled under exceptional circumstances, such as the misuse of the concession of bail, violation of basic law, repetition of the offence, or interference with the trial process, none of which were demonstrated in this case.
- What are the exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
- Should a court cancel bail after the commencement of the trial if no misuse of the concession is alleged?
- Is suspicion alone sufficient to warrant the cancellation of bail in a case of criminal breach of trust?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IQBAL HEMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.2 to 4 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, vide order dated 27-8-2009 in F.I.R.
No,327/2009 dated 3-8-2009 registered at Police Station City Pakpattan, District Pakpattan, under section 406, P.P.C. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joint business with respondents Nos.2 to 4 in the name and style of "Shama Jewellers" and on the death of Imran son of respondent No,2, the accused persons have misappropriated the amount of the petitioner amounting to Rs,6,50,000 that the accused persons are equally responsible to return the amount to the petitioner; that recovery is yet to be effected from them. He further submits that the respondents did not point out any mala fide or ulterior motive with the petitioner and there is no reason to involve the accused falsely in this case.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner is running a shop with the name and style of "Stylish Jewellers" and it is not believable that he put his money with the deceased Imran; which shows the mala fide on the part of the complainant; that all the respondents are running their independent business; that the respondents have been involved merely on the basis of suspicion; that the challan has been submitted and the trial has commenced.
4. Learned Addl. Prosecutor General, Punjab states that the accused persons have been found guilty of the offence vide Zimni No,7 dated 23-8-2009; that the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused persons have their own independent business.
The respondents have been nominated on the basis of suspicion therefore, false involvement of the respondents cannot be ruled out. The challan has been submitted before if learned trial court, charge has been frame on 20-11-2009 and trial is fixed for prosecution evidence and at this stage, any finding by this Court for or against the impugned order is not advisable. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Abdul Qahar and another 2003 M LD 87 The practice of the superior Courts has continuously been that once a bail is granted, it can only be cancelled or re- called on very strong and exception reasons i.e, misuse of concession of bail; bail order passed in violation of basic law the accused has repeated the offence; or there is evidence on record that the respondents have hampered the progress of the trial. None of these reasons are found on record in this case. There is no allegation against the respondents that the misused the concession of bail or he hurled any threat on the complainant/petitioner Reliance is placed on Munir Ahmad Saifi v.
Muhammad Javaid and 6 others (2007 PCr.LJ 108). In the case of Aurangzeb v. Shakeel Ahmad and another 2008 PCr.LJ 1565 it has been held that Court should be reluctant to cancel the bail, especially after A the commencement of the trial.
7. For the reasons noted above, this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Is dismissed.