WAHABUDDIN vs FAYYAZ KHAN and 2 others
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant Wahabuddin seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents Fayyaz Khan and Yasin Khattak by the lower court in respect of F.I.R. No. 600 registered on 15-7-2009. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether sufficient grounds existed for the recall and cancellation of pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused by a competent court. The court held that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail are distinct, and that strong and cogent reasons—such as a perverse order, disregard of settled principles, lack of material evidence, or misuse of the concession—are required to recall bail. Finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such grounds or circumstances, and that the Additional Sessions Judge had rightly confirmed the pre-arrest bail in accordance with law, the High Court dismissed the petition as meritless. The key principle laid down is that bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless the petitioner establishes exceptional and compelling circumstances demonstrating that the bail-granting order was perverse or contrary to law.
- What are the grounds required for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once granted by a competent court?
- Whether pre-arrest bail granted by an Additional Sessions Judge can be recalled without showing that the order was perverse or in disregard of settled principles?
- Does failure to point out misuse of the concession of bail or absence of material evidence preclude the cancellation of bail?
' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Through the present petition, the complainant of the case F.I.R.
No, 600, dated 15-7-2009 Wahab-ud-Din has approached this Court for cancellation of bail before arrest granted to Fayaz Khan and Yasin Khattak, complainant and the eye-witness of case F.I.R.
No,590, dated 12-7-2009.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15-7-2009 at 13-00 hours, Wahabuddin complainant reported the matter to the police in writing that at the fateful time, he along with his other fellows was on duty at Khushal Garden when in the meantime, Fayyaz, Asad Ayaz, Yasin Khattak and Kamal Bacha along with 4/5 other unknown persons armed with Kalashnikovs and pistols came there and opened indiscriminate firing at them. They took shelter and resorted to aerial firing in self-defence. Motive for the offence was stated to be a dispute over the land/scheme of the garden.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the grounds for grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court are totally different. Strong and cogent reasons are required for the recall of the same, for instance, if the bail granting order is perverse or in disregard of settled principles regulating the grant of bail or which was based on no material/evidence or the accused after grant of bail has misused the concession to extended to the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to put forth any of the above settled principles governing the cancellation of bail. Similarly no such other circumstance was pointed out which could have helped him in support of his petition.
4. While keeping in view the circumstances and facts of the present case, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV has rightly confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail of the accused respondents within the ambit of law. Thus, this petition for cancellation of bail being without any merits is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAMSUDDIN Versus State 2017 YLRN 450