Raja ZAHOOR AHMED Versus State

ORDER

The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide his order, dated 23-9-2004, in case F.I.R. No.415, dated 29-8-2004 registered under section 380, P.P.C. at Police Station Dera Rahim District Sahiwal.

2. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the allegation against the respondents is that they had stolen two buffaloes along with a donkey of the complainant.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are nominated in the F.I.R.; that the offence under section 380, P.P.C. falls under prohibitory clause; that no mala fide or ulterior motive was proved against the petitioner; that two buffaloes were recovered from the respondents; that the respondents are forcing the petitioner for effecting compromise and in case of refusal, they are threatening for dire consequences and that so for recovery of donkey is to be effected from the respondents.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents and has submitted that there is a delay of more than four months in the lodging of the FIR.; that the respondents are innocent; that the complainant had given two calf to the respondents on Batai but he with mala fide intention just to usurp the buffaloes got registered the instant case against the respondents; that the respondents have, not misused the concession of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the cancellation of bail and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail and several guiding principles for cancellation of bail granted to an accused, have been referred to in Muhammad Ramzan v. Taj Muhammad and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2006. He has further submitted that the respondents have not misused the concession of bail and, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.

7. 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 the evidence;

(v) the accused absconds after grant of bail;

(vi) the accused had 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 cases of heroin smuggling;

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

(ix) bail order of the subordinate Court was devoid of reasoning while granting bail and facts of the 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 2005. 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.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal has confirmed pre-arrest bail already granted to the respondents on the grounds:-

(i) that two buffaloes were given to the respondents on Batai and the complainant with mala fide intention just to usurp the buffaloes got registered the instant case against the respondents; and

(ii) that the complainant is a resident of District Rawalpindi and for the above said purpose he had kept two buffaloes on his Dera at Sahiwal.

The respondents were servants of the complainant and they left his job and went to their homes situated in Tehsil Tandlianwala. The complainant had given two buffaloes to the respondents on Batai. For the purpose of usurping the said buffaloes, the complainant instigated the police and the police with mala fide intention lodged the F.I.R. and recovered the said buffaloes. There was element of mala fide on the part C of the police as well as the complainant to implicate the respondents in the instant case. There appears no illegality in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the exercise of the discretion is in accordance with law as no allegation of misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail has been in this petition.

9. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed.

N.H.Q./Z-100/L Petition dismissed.