MUZZAMIL HUSSAIN vs ALLAH NAWAZ and another
This criminal petition arises from an application filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur, in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the respondent, who was alleged to be present at the scene but not attributed with any specific overt act of firing, warranted cancellation. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, as the First Information Report did not attribute any effective role or overt act to him beyond his presence at the scene. The Court affirmed the principle that the criteria for granting bail differ significantly from those for its cancellation. Once bail is granted by a competent court, it cannot be revoked without demonstrating strong, exceptional grounds, such as misuse of the concession or tampering with evidence, neither of which was established by the petitioner.
- What are the legal requirements for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed overt act, constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
- Is a case involving an accused with no attributed overt act considered a matter of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Muzzamil Hussain, complainant/ petitioner, has tiled this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent Allah Nawaz by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Paharpur vide order dated 4-4-2011 in case F.I.R. No. 126 dated 14-6-2010 of Police Station Paharpur registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.
2. The accusation against the accused/respondent is that he was present on the spot duly armed with Kalashnikov at the time of occurrence along with his brother Saifullah who has allegedly committed the murder of the deceased Tajjamul Hussain with a firearm pistol.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner argued that there is ample evidence against the accused/respondent Allah Nawaz in the shape of ocular evidence of two witnesses and thus he has wrongly been granted the concession of bail by the court below through the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, it was argued that no overt-act has been attributed to the accused/respondent in the occurrence and he was only seen running away along with his brother who is charged for effective role.
5. I have carefully gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that the complainant was informed by someone about the death of his brother Tajjamul Hussain and thus the matter was accordingly reported to the police in the hospital. He disclosed in his first report that a shopkeeper, namely, Muhammad Saleem, informed him on Mobile about the murder of his brother by one Saifullah by firing at him. He has further reported that when he reached the spot, he saw Saifullah accused having a pistol and his brother Allah Nawaz, accused/respondent with a Kalashnikov while decamping from the spot. In the F.I.R., accused Saifullah Khan is charged for effective firing and killing the deceased and the respondent Allah Nawaz has not been attributed any overt-act in the occurrence and he was simply shown running together with his brother co-accused Saifullah.
7. In the above circumstances, case of the accused/respondent was of further inquiry entitling him to the grant of bail which was rightly granted to him through the impugned order and needs no interference.
8. Furthermore, principles of grant of bail and cancellation thereof are quite different. Once bail is granted by a competent Court of law, then strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation thereof. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner failed to pinpoint any such infirmity in the impugned order of granting bail to the accused/respondent which is accordingly upheld.
9. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner could not show anything on record that the accused/respondent has either misused the concession of bail or tampered with the investigation process.
10. Consequently, I find no substance in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs ZAMEER HUSSAIN SHAH and 2 others 2017 YLR 1238