MUHAMMAD YOUNIS PARVEZ vs QABOOL KHAN and 2 others
This criminal petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 419, 420, 447, 427, 382, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were directly charged, had remained fugitives, and that the initial bail order was passed without hearing the complainant. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted by the trial court warranted cancellation based on the petitioner's allegations. The Court held that the prosecution case was not supported by witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the dispute appeared civil in nature, and the investigation was complete. Emphasizing that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail differ, the Court ruled that strong and exceptional grounds are required to recall bail once granted, which were absent here. The petition was dismissed, maintaining the trial court's order as it was neither perverse nor fanciful.
- What are the specific requirements for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
- Does the existence of a civil dispute between parties impact the merits of a criminal bail application?
- Is the failure to hear the complainant at the time of granting pre-arrest bail sufficient grounds for its cancellation?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ATTAULLAH KHAN J.---Through this application filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muhammad Younis Parvez seeks the cancellation of pre-arrest bail allowed to Qabool Khan and Haji Raees Khan, accused/respondents, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII D.I.Khan in case F.I.R. No. 32 dated 14-2-2010 of Police Station Kulachi registered under, sections 419/420/447/427/382/506/ 148/149, P.P.C. On the grounds, inter alia, that they are directly charged by the complainant/petitioner for committing the crime in a broad day light, that they have remained fugitive from law for a considerable long and unexplained period; that the petitioner was unheard at the time of passing the impugned order as he was not made party in the application for Bail before arrest moved by the accused/respondents; that there was no question of mistaken identity and that the ingredients necessary for grant of bail before arrest were not available to them.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondents and State defended the impugned order by submitting that the report was lodged with a delay of eight days which are sufficient for consultation and fabricating a false case against the accused. They urged that only sections 447/427 and 506, P.P.C. Are available against the accused while the remaining sections of law have been deleted.
3. I have gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The statements of P.Ws. Recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Disclose that the case of the prosecution is not supported by them as it stands in the F.I.R. The dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The available sections against the accused/respondents are bailable and there is no evidence at the moment on record to connect them with the commission of the offence. Hence there is no prima facie case against them. Investigation in the case is complete and the accused/respondents are no more required for the same purpose.
5. Tentative assessm ent of the materials so far brought on record brings the case of the accused/respondents within the ambit of further inquiry. Therefore, the impugned order of granting pre-arrest bail to them by the Court below is neither perverse nor fanciful so as to call for interference by this Court which is accordingly maintained.
6. Considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are quite different from each other.
Once bail is granted by a competent Court of law, then strong and exceptional grounds are needed for recalling the same, which are lacking here as there is no proof brought on record that the accused/respondents have either misused the concession of bail or tampered with the investigation process.
7. It is true that mala fide, false implication and humiliation are main factors to be considered in pre-arrest bail matters, but is also true that if on fact a case is made out, it is also considered because it amounts to false implication.
8. As stated above, the accused are contractors and they paid price of mud for filling purpose to the persons who posed themselves to be owners. So act done is under wrong conception.
Moreover, the landed property is barren and not capable of cultivation and so the question of physical possession does not arise. Therefore, these factors are also relevant for the purpose of grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
9. Humiliations and harassm ent are also to be considered. The circumstances of the case indicate that perhaps no offence is shown to have been committed on the face of the record. Reference may given to 1996 SCM R 74.
10. Consequently, I find no substance in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed.