STATE through Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab, Multan vs MUHAMMAD
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in connection with FIR No. 225 registered under Sections 365-B, 376(ii), and 371-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether grounds existed to recall the bail already granted to the respondents. The Court held that the considerations for the cancellation of bail are significantly different from those for its grant and are akin to grounds for an appeal against acquittal, requiring a showing that the bail-granting order was perverse or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such perversity or overlooked material substance, the High Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that bail once granted will not be cancelled unless the petitioner demonstrates that the granting order is perverse, leaves no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused, or suffers from unconsidered material substance amounting to a miscarriage of justice.
- What are the legal considerations and standards required for the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled merely on the grounds of misreading of evidence without showing perversity?
- Are the grounds for the cancellation of bail akin to the grounds for an appeal against acquittal?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition moved under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks recall of order dated 07.9.2018 whereby Respondents No, 1 and 2 were admitted to post arrest bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No, 225 dated 27.3.2018 under Sections 365-B, 376(ii), 371-A, PPC registered at Police Station New Multan, District Multan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is result of misreading and non reading of evidence; that sufficient incriminating material was available on record against Respondents No, 1 and 2 but learned trial Court did not appreciate it; that it was, in fact, the case of gang rape but learned trial Court exercised its jurisdiction contrary to law on the subject, thus, impugned order was liable to be set aside.
3. Learned 'counsel for Respondents No, 1 and 2 maintained the validity of the impugned order .
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. A review of the record demonstrates that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge admitted the Respondents No, 1 and 2 on post arrest bail. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge dealt with the merits of the case in Para-6 of the impugned order which reflects that the respondents were not nominated in the FIR. MLR was in conflict with DNA report, not received and it was difficult to determine in absence of the report regarding actua l culprit of the offence and that nothing was recovered from the said respondents during the investigation.
6. It may be noted that this is an application for cancellation of bail and that consideration for cancellation of bail are quite different from the grounds for grant of bail. The grounds for cancellation of bail are akin to the grounds for appeal against acquittal This was the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Mian Dad v . The State and another " (1992 SCMR 1286 ).
As such, in order to succeed, the learned counsel is required to show that the order whereby the bail was granted is perverse, no other conclusion could be drawn except the guilt of the accu sed or that there was material substance not considered by the Court resulting in miscarriage of the justice. It may be noted that the learned counsel did not make any submission on these lines and therefore, I am of the considered view that the instant petition has no merits and is dismissed.