SHAREEF-UD-DIN vs Mir AFZAL and 2 others
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge Gilgit in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Basin. The core legal question is whether the post-arrest bail granted to the respondents ought to be cancelled on grounds of active participation, eyewitness nomination, and recovery of a weapon. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that no overt act was attributed to the respondents, no crime empties were recovered to support the allegation of firing, and the intention to kill required determination at trial. Emphasizing that very strong and exceptional grounds are required to set aside a bail order once granted by a competent court, the court found no infirmity in the impugned bail-granting order. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that bail once granted will not be interfered with or cancelled absent exceptional circumstances or jurisdictional error, and declined the application.
- What grounds are required for the cancellation of post-arrest bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
- Does the absence of crime empty recovery from the place of occurrence support further inquiry into a charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can bail be cancelled merely on the assertion of day-light occurrence and direct nomination in the FIR without showing exceptional grounds?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. was registered against the respondents on 21-03-2016 at Police Station Basin on the application of complainant/petitioner Sharif-ud-Din.
2. Respondents were allowed post arrest bail by the learned Additional Session Judge Gilgit vide order 31-05-2016, which has been assailed before this Court by filing instant petition under section 497(5), Cr. P.C.
3. The learned counsel for complainant/petitioner Raja Zia-ur-Rehman argued that it was a day light occurrence and FIR of the occurrence was lodged without any delay nominating the accused and their active participation in commission of offence. The learned counsel further submitted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and recovery of .30 bore pistol has been effected on the pointation of respondent No,2. Per learned counsel there exists a prima facie case against the respondents and prays for cancellation of bail facility allowed to the respondents.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have been booked in the above offence maliciously as a land dispute was going on between the parties.
The learned counsel submitted that bail has been allowed to respondents after reaching the conclusion that the case was one of the further inquiry. The learned counsel further submitted that recovery of .30 bore pistol is fake and planted as no respectable of the locality has been cited as a witness of alleged recovery and the benefit of violation of section 103, Cr.P.0 should also be extended to respondent even at bail stage. He prays that bail granted by the learned trial Court be maintained.
5. Having heard the parties and from perusal of record, it reveals that though the occurrence is a day light occurrence, in which the respondents have been directly charged, but no overt act is attributed to them. It is alleged in the FIR that respondent No,2 opened fire on the complainant but, no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence nor any crime empty has been shown to have been recovered from the place of occurrence by the I.O. in the site plan. The alleged firing was ineffective and intention to kill will be determined at trial after recording of evidence.
Once bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation.
6. The learned counsel for complainant/petitioner tried his best, but failed to point out any infirmity in the bail granting order.
7. Resultantly, the bail cancellation application filed by complainant/petitioner under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. is declined.