ZAHIR UD DJN vs The STATE and anotlitrs
This is a criminal petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-trial bail granted to the accused respondent, Haji Karam Din, by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar, in a case arising from an F.I.R. registered under sections 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to interfere with the discretionary order granting bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, given that the specific attribution of the fatal shot among multiple charged persons was a matter for trial, and that no misuse of the concession of bail was demonstrated. The court reiterated the key legal principle that the grounds for the cancellation of bail are distinct from those for its grant, and bail once granted will rarely be interfered with unless the order is palpably illegal, arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to the record. The petition for the cancellation of bail was accordingly dismissed in limine.
- Whether bail once granted by a court of competent jurisdiction can be easily interfered with without showing that the impugned order is palpably illegal or perverse?
- Does the attribution of a fatal weapon among multiple co-accused create a case of further inquiry into the guilt of an accused for the purpose of bail?
- Are the grounds for the cancellation of bail different from the grounds for the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---Haji Karam Din, who is accused in case F.I.R. No.111 dated 30-10-2013 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Of Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar, was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar, vide his order dated 18-12-2013 and aggrieved from the same Zahir Din, the complainant has come to this court for its cancellation.
2. The allegation against the accused/ respondent as per F.I.R. Referred to above are that on 30-10- 2013 Abdullah Jan, A.S.-I. To Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar was on gusht of the Maga when got information about the lying of a dead-body on a road leading to Madina Colony and hence he rushed to there, where Zahir Din brother of the deceased made him a report to the effect that on the day of occurrence, at early morning lie along with his brother Nizamuddin had come to Peshawar in connection with their personal business, when Irshad Khan son of Karam Din made a call to the deceased on his cell phone and asked him to come to Dalazak Road Peshawar and accordingly he proceeded to there all alone; that at Sham Vela he got information that his brother has been done to death through firearm and hence he rushed to there, where he found his brother lying dead. According to the complainant he is fully satisfied that his brother has been murdered by accused/ respondent Karam Din and five others. Motive behind the offence, as stated by the complainant, is that some two years prior to the occurrence, sister of co-accused Zia-urRehman had eloped and that the accused were suspecting the deceased. The matter was patched up but the was still there.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It appears from the record available on file that in this case the occurrence took place on 30-10- 2013 at about 1730 hours, whereas the report has been lodged on the same day at about 1810 hours.
Zahir Din, brother of the deceased, is the complainant of the present case and he has charged the accused/respondent along with five others for commission of the offence.
5. Admittedly and as is evident from the record the call which the deceased had received on his cell phone as per version of the complainant was from co-accused Irshad. Again the motive as stated in the F.I.R. Has been attributed to another accused Zia-ur-Rehman, as according to the complainant some two years prior to the occurrence his sister had eloped and the accused were suspecting the deceased.
6. Moreover, the I.O. During the spot inspection has recovered two empties of .30 bore from the place of wardaat and as per opinion of the Arms Expert both the empties have been fired from one and the same .30 bore weapon and as against that six persons have been charged and the question arises that which one was having pistol of .30 bore and by whom it was used while committing the crime is the question which could be resolved at the trial.
7. Again there is nothing on record, whatsoever, which could show that the accused/ respondent after his release has misused or abused the concession of bail.
8. Above all, it is settled principle of law that grounds for cancellation of bail are altogether different from that of grant of bail and once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is rarely interfered with, unless the impugned order is palpably illegal, arbitrary and perverse or against the record. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the present case.
9. In the attending circumstances of the case, there is wide scope of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused/ respondent and which position stands rightly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar, resultantly, the petition for cancellation of bail stands dismissed in limine.