ABDUL AZIZ Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail after-arrest application filed by petitioners seeking restoration of bail that had been cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of bail by the lower appellate court was justified based on the alleged abuse of the concession of bail by the accused, specifically regarding threats to witnesses and tampering with evidence. The High Court held that the cancellation was improper, noting that the complainant's application for cancellation was filed on July 10, 2003, whereas the police report (Report No. 17) alleging threats was dated July 23, 2003. The Court determined that the cancellation application preceded the alleged incident, rendering the allegations an afterthought. Furthermore, no evidence, such as affidavits from the threatened witnesses, was provided. Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application, establishing the principle that bail cancellation requires concrete evidence of abuse of the concession, and allegations of witness tampering must be substantiated rather than being mere afterthoughts or unsubstantiated claims.
- Can a bail cancellation application be sustained when the alleged grounds for cancellation occurred after the application was filed?
- Is a police report sufficient evidence to cancel bail if it is not supported by affidavits or independent corroboration?
- What is the standard for cancelling bail once it has been granted to an accused?
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
In F.I.R. No.140 of 2003, lodged on 4-5-2003 by Maqbool Ahmad informant, with the Liaqatpur Police District Rahimyar Khan under section 435, P.P.C., Illaqa Magistrate accepted the bail after-arrest application of the petitioners on 16-6-2003, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur cancelled the bail of the petitioners on 26-8-2003, granted by the Illaqa Magistrate. Hence, this bail after-arrest application.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the concession of bail withdrawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not in accordance with the settled principles propounded by the superior Courts for the cancellation of bail after arrest.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment.
4. I have perused the record of the case and heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State.
5. It is settled law that after extending the concession of bail to the accused, it can be withdrawn when there is abuse of the concession of the bail granted to the accused. One of the grounds, which has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that the accused had hurled threats of dire consequences to the complainant as well as to the, witnesses, and had tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has, referred to Report No. 17, dated 23-7-2003 which was got entered into by the complainant with the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. The application for cancellation of bail after-arrest already granted to the accused was moved by the complainant on 10-7-2003, while the alleged Report in daily diary of police station bearing No. 17 depicts the date of 23-7-2003. This shows b that the application for cancellation of bail was filed before getting the alleged report entered into the police station. Therefore, this was an afterthought mechanism adopted by the complainant which, could not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to cancel the concession of bail already granted to the accused/petitioners. Neither the affidavits of the witnesses nor any report from those witnesses, who were allegedly given the threats were produced alongwith the cancellation bail application. I, therefore, allow the bail to - the accused in the sum of Rs.1,00.000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
The learned trial court shall however be at liberty to take necessary action against the petitioners, if during the pendency case, the abuse of the concession of bail is found, in accordance law.
H.B.T./A-1012/L Bail granted.