Pakistan Case Law
2005 PCRLJ 1008

Mst. SHAREEFAN BIBI Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2005 PCRLJ 1008
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No.88/CB of 2005
Date2005-04-11
Judge(s)Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This is a criminal petition filed for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in connection with F.I.R. No. 27 of 2005 registered under sections 452, 354, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Qadirpur Rawan, District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient and exceptional grounds exist for the cancellation of bail already granted by the lower court. The Lahore High Court held that no grounds for cancellation were made out, noting an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the non-application of the prohibitory clause, the absence of weapons with the accused, previous enmity between the parties, and that considerations for bail cancellation differ strictly from those for granting bail. The court laid down that strong and exceptional grounds are prerequisite for setting aside a bail order passed by a competent court, and dismissed the petition in limine.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What are the guiding principles for the cancellation of bail already granted to an accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay of nearly two months in lodging an F.I.R. weigh against the cancellation of bail?
  • What kind of grounds are required for the cancellation of bail granted by a competent court?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcriminal trespassprohibitory clausedelay in FIRprevious enmity

ORDER

This is a petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order, dated 12‑3‑2005 in case F.I.R. No.27 of 2005 dated 15‑2‑2005 registered under sections 452/354/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Qadirpur Rawan District Multan.

2. Precisely the allegation against the present respondents as per prosecution story is that on 19‑12‑2004 they made a tresspass when Mst. Sharifan complainant and Mst. Manzooran were available in their house and tried to abduct Mst. Sharifan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 attempted to abduct the petitioner as well as Mst. Manzooran Mai and her children but the learned Court below ignored this very aspect of the case and allowed bail to respondents. That the bail granting order is arbitrary, capricious and against .the law and facts of the case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is unexplained delay of one month and 26 days in lodging the F.I.R. and case of the respondents does not fall within prohibitory clause. At the time of occurrence the respondents had been shown empty‑handed, while perusing the bail granting order impugned in this petition it has been found that there was previous enmity between the parties and due to this reason case was registered against the respondents/accused.

5. Considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. The superior Courts have laid down guiding principles for the subordinate Courts to cancel bail granted to an accused if:‑‑

(i) Bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it;

(ii) the accused on bail commits the same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted;

(iii) the accused on bail hampers the investigation;

(iv) the accused on bail tampers with evidence;

(v) the accused absconds after grant of bail;

(vi) the accused got bail on the basis of false averments regarding his age or illness, etc;

(vii) the accused was implicated as the principal offender in several cases which badly affect the society at large such as in the case of heroin smuggling;

(viii) grant of bail to an accused has become a foundation of revenge against complainant party, prosecution or the witnesses;

(ix) bail order of the Subordinate Court was devoid of reasoning while granting bail and facts of case were fully implicating the accused for attracting S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

The above said principles have been referred to in Muhammad Ramzan v. Taj Muhammad and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2006. Strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation of bail when bail is granted by a competent Court, reliance in this behalf is placed upon Bashir Ahmad v. Mirza Muhammad Ayub 1991 MLD 579.

6. No ground exists for cancellation of bail. This petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./S‑348/L Petition dismissed.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.