Muhammad Alamgir vs Bahauddin and another
This matter concerns a criminal petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchlak, in a case involving allegations of dacoity under Sections 395 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the complainant established sufficient grounds to justify the cancellation of the bail already granted to the accused. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the accused had misused the concession of bail or that there were any exceptional circumstances warranting such cancellation. The court reaffirmed the established legal principle that considerations for the grant of bail are distinct from those for its cancellation. Once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be recalled or cancelled unless strong, exceptional grounds are established, and the mere existence of differing opinions based on a tentative assessment of evidence is insufficient to justify such a drastic measure.
- What is the legal threshold for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does the mere existence of two conflicting opinions based on a tentative assessment of evidence constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
- Is the misuse of the concession of bail a necessary requirement for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---The applicant/complainant filed an application under section 497(5) Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail of private respondent with the prayer: "In view of the above it is, therefore, accordingly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to declare the impugned bail granting order dated 3.8.1019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchlak as illegal, unlawful, hence set .t aside/ cancel it accordingly, and in the consequences thereof the accused/ respondent No. 01 be taken into arrest, in the interest of equity, fair play and justice."
2. The complainant registered FIR No. 50 of 2019, under sections 395, 109 Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) with Police Station Kuchlak, on 1st July 2019, with the allegations that the accused along with his companions duly armed with weapons alighted the uncle of the complainant from dumper vehicle No. TUC 143; tied him and forcibly took away the dumper vehicle. On this report the accused/ respondent No. 1 was arrested and after completion of investigation shifted to judicial custody.
3. After judicial remand the accused/respondent No. 1 moved application for his release on bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchlak, who after hearing arguments allowed the same vide order dated 3rd August 2019, hence the complainant being aggrieved of the same filed instant application for cancellation of bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as State Counsel and also gone through the available record. It is well entrenched by law that when bail has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction the same cannot be recalled/ cancelled until and unless exceptional grounds are established. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out that after release on bail the accused/ respondent has misused the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on case law Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202. The August Court has laid down the law to the following affairs:
6. It needs no reiteration that considerations for the grant of bail are quite distinct from the consideration for cancellation of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancelling the same, as held by this Court on a number of occasions....."
5. The mere fact that two opinions, one positive on basis of tentative assessment of evidence would not be sufficient for cancellation of bail. Reliance is placed on Nasir Khan v. Waseel Gul 2011 SCMR 710.
"---- and held that main consideration for grant of bail under subsection(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is that if the Court on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence, form an opinion that prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence with which he was being charged he would be allowed bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. as of right."
In view of the above, I find no merit in the application which is hereby dismissed.
These are the reasons of short order make on 4th November, 2019