Umar Farooq vs State and another
This criminal petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 2 to 15 by the Additional Sessions Judge in a cross-version case registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 440, 447, 511, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted by the trial court warranted cancellation due to alleged perversity. The High Court observed that the medical evidence cast doubt on the injuries sustained by the complainant and his associates, rendering the cross-version doubtful and necessitating further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Emphasizing that the considerations for cancelling bail differ from those for granting it, the Court held that bail granted by a competent court should not be recalled unless the order is shown to be perverse or the concession of bail has been misused. Finding no evidence of perversity, the Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that appellate courts must exercise maximum restraint in recalling bail granted for cogent reasons.
- What are the legal grounds required for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does the High Court act as an appellate court when reviewing an order of pre-arrest bail granted by a Sessions Court?
- Is the determination of vicarious liability appropriate at the bail stage or should it be reserved for trial?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 2 to 15 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala, in cross-version registered at Police Station Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala, for offences under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/337-L(2)/440/447/51 1/148/149, PPC in case FIR No. 312/2020 dated 18-04-2020.
2. Briefly , the allegation case against Respondents No. 2 to 15 is that on 18-04 -2020 at about 08:30 a.m. they attempted to dispossess the Petitioner from his cattle-Shed and while doing so injured him, Muhammad Asif and Shahid Ali.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Petitioner Umar Farooq claimed that he received three injuries in the incident. The Medical Board has opined that there is a possibility of fabrication of Injury No. 1 which was Shajjah-i-Mudihah. On the other hand, Injuries No. 2 & 3 were Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah falling within the ambit of Section 337-F(i), PPC. The said offence is bailable.
5. Asif is alleged to have received four injuries. Injury No. 2 was found suspect. Injuries No. 3 & 4 were declared Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah which attrac t Section 337-F(i) PPC and the offence is bailable. On the other hand, Injury No. 1 is not attributed to Respondents No. 2 to 15. The question of their vicarious liability for the said injury can only be determined during the trial after recording the evidence.
6. In view of the fact that Injury No. 1 of the Petitioner and Injury No. 2 of Asif have been found suspect, the cross- version has become doubtful. As a result, further inquiry is required to determine guilt of Respondents No. 2 to 15 even in respect of the of fence under Section 440 PPC.
7. It is trite that considerations for grant of bail are-dif ferent from those for cancellation of bail. Generally , bail granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction is not cancelled unless the bail granting order is perverse or there is an allegation that the accused has misused the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has only urged that the bail granting order is perverse but has not been able to persuade this Court about it. He did not argue the other ground. In Aamir Bashir and another v. State and another (PLJ 2018 SC 445), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held: "The powers and jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court to grant pre-arrest bail are co-extensive.
The High Court does not act as an Appellate Court in such matters. Therefore, once pre-arrest bail is granted by Sessions Court for cogent reason, palpa ble on record then, the High Court has to show maximum restraint in recalling the same unless the bail granting order is shown to be absolutely perverse or has been granted in disregard of the settled principles regulating the grant or refusal to grant such bail."
8. This application has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.