Mst. NAEEM AKHTAR vs WAKEEL BADSHA and another
This petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge in connection with F.I.R. No. 14, registered under Sections 489-F, 468, 471, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, acting as a surety in a vehicle transaction, committed fraud by selling a car that was subject to bank seizure due to defaulted installments. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent should be recalled due to the alleged involvement in the fraudulent transaction. The Court held that no perversity existed in the order granting bail, nor were any exceptional circumstances presented to justify its cancellation. The Court determined that the respondent's specific role as a surety remained a matter for trial and that the existing evidence did not warrant the cancellation of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit, reinforcing the principle that bail cancellation requires strong, exceptional grounds and cannot be granted based on mere allegations.
- What are the grounds required for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere allegation of involvement in a fraudulent transaction justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a finding of perversity in the lower court's bail-granting order a prerequisite for the High Court to cancel bail?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASAD MUNIR, J.---This is a petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for recalling.order dated 26-1-2010 whereby pre-arrest bail was granted to the respondent No, 1 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in case F.I.R. No,14, dated 13-1-2010 for offence under section 489-F/468/471/420, P.P.C. registered at .Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner purchased a Suzuki Mehran car from.Kashif Javed through respondent No,1, who is her ex-husband, and who acted as surety for the transaction.
However, the Car was subsequently seized by bank on account of default in payment of instalments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the pre-arrest bail has been granted without considering the evidence on record which showed that the respondent No,1 was fully involved along with the other accused, who had committed fraud in selling a car to the petitioner without . disclosing that instalments were due to the bank.
4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner but I am unable to see any perversity in the bail granting order which cannot be taken exception to. Nor any exceptional circumstance has been brought to my notice as would persuade me to order cancellation of the bail. The role of the petitioner as a surety in the transaction for the sale of car is yet to be determined and the evidence as it presently exists does not make out a case for cancellation of bail.
5. In view of the above, the petition for cancellation of bail is devoid of merit and is accordingly
Cited by 1 case
- M. IQBAL BUTT Versus State 2012 PCrLJ 1350