MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs THE STATE and others
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had caused injuries to the victim and that the weapon of offense remained unrecovered. The respondent contended that investigation revealed the alleged victim was not present at the scene of the occurrence. The Court held that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it, requiring proof of misuse of the concession, such as absconding, hampering investigation, or threatening witnesses. Finding that the investigation supported the conclusion that the alleged victim was not present at the scene and noting no evidence that the respondent had misused the bail, the Court affirmed the lower court's order. The principle laid down is that bail, once granted by a competent court, should not be cancelled absent extraordinary circumstances or evidence of misuse of the liberty by the accused.
- What are the primary factors that must be established to justify the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
- Does the mere allegation of a specific role in causing injury warrant the cancellation of pre-arrest bail if investigation findings contradict the presence of the victim?
- Are the considerations for cancelling bail identical to those for the initial grant or refusal of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 20, Arms Ordinance
- Section 65, Arms Ordinance
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Muhammad Yousaf Khan, petitioner, who is the complainant of case F.I.R. No, 139 dated 8-8-2011 registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station, Musa Khel District Mianwali, has made the present petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For cancellation of bail granted to respondent No,2 Imran Khan, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10-9-2011 on the ground that specific role of causing injury at the person of Mohsin. Nawaz was attributed to him and the weapon of offence was yet to be recovered and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed his pre-arrest bail arbitrarily.
2. On the other hand, the application was opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No,2. It is contended that it was found during the investigation that Mohsin Nawaz was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he had withdrawn his pre-arrest bail in the cross-version, Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with law and is liable to be maintained.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The allegation against the respondent is that he while armed with fire arms along with his co- accused formed an unlawful assembly in the area of Wandha Ghoranianwala Dakhli Musa Khel District Mianwali within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Musa Khel and in furtherance of their common, object attacked on the complainant party and injured Mohsin Nawaz and Safeer Ahmed Khan.
5. The considerations for grant of cancellation of bail are altogether different from those required for the grant or refusal of bail. Once, the accused has been admitted to bail by a competent Court of law then extraordinary circumstances are required to interfere with the said order. The most important factor for the cancellation of bail is the conduct of the parties after bail and the factors which are to be considered for the cancellation of bail are that whether the person who has been enlarged on bail is misusing the facility of bail or is likely to abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court or is hampering the investigation or is threatening to - the witnesses or is creating obstruction in the course of Justice.
6. The allegation against the present respondent is that he caused blow of "Butt" of gun at the right hand of Mohsin Nawaz and injured him but the impugned order itself has revealed that Mohsin Nawaz, who was allegedly injured by the respondent was not found present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence and he himself had withdrawn his application for seeking pre-arrest bail in the cross-version of this case.
7. In these circumstances when Mohsin Nawaz, allegedly was nbt found present at the time of occurrence and no injury was attributed to him by lmran Khan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed his pre-arrest bail. There is nothing on record that Imran Khan respondent after confirmation of his pre-arrest bail has misused the concession of bail. Therefore, there is no cogent reason for the cancellation of bail granted by the competent Court of law. This petition having no merit is hereby dismissed.