M. RASHID vs SHAH MUHAMMAD
This petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, in a case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed for the cancellation of bail, considering the allegations in the F.I.R., the age of the accused, and the absence of any overt injury attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that no case for cancellation of bail was made out, observing that the accused was over 69 years of age—bringing his case within the protective proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—and that no independent evidence existed to substantiate the allegation that the accused had misused the concession of bail. The court laid down the principle that different considerations apply to the grant of bail versus its cancellation, and once bail is granted through the exercise of discretionary power, strong and special circumstances supported by independent evidence are required for its cancellation.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and special circumstances?
- Does the old age of an accused person bring his case under the proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an affidavit of the petitioner alone sufficient to prove the misuse of the concession 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
JUDGMENT ORDER HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation of post- arrest bail allowed to respondent No.1 vide order, dated 5-10-2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni in case F.I.R. No. 256 of 2009 dated 16-8-2009 under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Kassowal, District Chichawatni.
2. Briefly the allegation as per F.I.R. 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 spared.
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 5-10-2009 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 be 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- respondent No.1 is nominated in the prompt F.I.R. With specific role attributed to him; punishment for offence under section 302, P.P.C. 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 are no circumstances, which makes his case for further inquiry; accused-respondent No. 1 after releasing on bail causing threats of dire consequences, therefore, he misused 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 case is also covered under the proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. Being person of old age and infirm person. No overt act 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 respondent No.1 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, dated 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.