Umer Khan vs Rehmat Ullah and another
This matter comes before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court upon a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Chilas. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to recall the bail granted to the accused, who was nominated in the FIR for allegedly enticing away a woman for marriage. The Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned bail-granting order, noting that the trial court had properly considered all pro and contra arguments. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed in limine. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail granted by a trial court will not be interfered with or cancelled under Section 497(5) unless a clear legal infirmity or misappraisal of the record is demonstrated by the petitioner.
- Whether bail once granted by a trial court can be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without showing a legal infirmity?
- Does the enticement of a person for marriage furnish adequate grounds for the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, CJ.---- The instant petition has been moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner under section 497 (5) for cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent by the learned Session Judge Chilas vide order dated 28-10-2019.
2. Brief facts of the persecution story as reflected in the FIR are that on the night Rahmat Ullah son in law of Shehyar came at his house. At night Rehmat Ullah enticed away Mst. Gul Badan for the purpose of marriage. Mst.
Sateel daughter of Shehyar was already in the wedlock of Rehmat Ullah. Early in the morning, Mst. Gul Badan and Rehmat Ullah were found missing in the house of complainant, and FIR was lodged accordingly .
3. Accused /petitioner had filed an application for his enlargement on bail before the learned Sessions Judge Diamer . The learned Sessions Judge Diamer after hearing both the parties allowed the petition and accused /petitioner was granted bail. Being aggrieved from the said order the present petitioner filed the instant petition under section 497(5) Cr .P.C. seeking cancellation of post arrest bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1/accused is directly nominated in the FIR and the accused has committed an unlawful act which is against injunctions of Islam and also against the norms of Society . He further submitted that the bail granted by learned Sessions Judge Chilas be recalled to meet the ends of justice. He lastly submitted that bail of the petitioner be recalled.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also gone through the record of the case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order therefore, no case is made out for cancellation of post arrest bail which has been allowed after taking into consideration all the pro and contra arguments by the learned trial Court.
7. The instant petition is dismissed in limine. File.