MUHAMMAD ADIL SIDDIQUI Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ MEHMOOD

ORDER

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.-- -Respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Farooq Mehmood) stands charged for having committed offence punishable under sections 380/448/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.762/2019 dated 29.8.2019, lodged at P.S. Preedy, Karachi (South).

2. It appears from the record that Respondent No. 1 was granted bail by the learned 15th Judicial Magistrate, Karachi (South) in the said crime vide order dated 04.9.2019. It was challenged by the applicant before the learned 2nd District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), who maintained the order of the Judicial Magistrate, hence this cancellation of bail application.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that the orders passed by the two Courts below are against the law and facts and submits that there are direct allegation against the accused for committing theft, therefore, bail orders are required to be cancelled. During the course of arguments, he has also reiterated the same facts and grounds which he has urged in the memo of criminal miscellaneous application.

4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the bail orders already granted in favour of the respondent No.1 and submits that it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the respondent has committed the offence as stated in FIR or otherwise. He also submits that the punishment of the offences also do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and according to him, no exceptional circumstances appear in this case to cancel the bail.

5. On a close scrutiny of the material placed on file, I am of the opinion that prima facie reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Farooq Mehmood) has committed the offence. The reason for granted bail to him is quite sufficient/ convincing and 15th Judicial Magistrate, Karachi (South) and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) have recorded speaking orders. In the circumstances, I do not see any justification as to why the discretion exercised by the two Courts below judiciously be interfered with by this Court.

6. Even otherwise, strong and exceptional grounds are required for the cancellation of bail granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction because the provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C. are not at all punitive. Resultantly, there is no legal compulsion even for the cancellation of the bail granted in cases which are punishable with death/life imprisonment/imprisonment for ten years.

7. Additionally, the accused is not to be deprived of the benefit of bail whenever reasonable doubt arises about his participation in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case. In such a situation, it would be better to keep him on bail than in the jail during the period of the trial and the personal liberty granted to him by a Court of competent jurisdiction, through grant of bail, should not be snatched away from him unless it becomes absolutely necessary to do so under the law. In this respect, I am supported by the case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State reported in PLD 1996 SC 241.

8. In the instant case, alleged incident took place on 20.7.2019, whereas the FIR was lodged by complainant Muhammad Adil Siddiqui on 29.8.2019 after the delay of about more than one month for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, as such on this ground false implication of the respondent No.1 in this case with due deliberation could not be ruled out. Case has already been challaned. Present accused is no more required for investigation. Punishment of the offences under which the present accused has been booked also do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No exceptional ground exists to cancel the bail in favour of respondent No.1.

In the circumstances, I am of the view that this application for the cancellation of bail is without any substance. The same is accordingly dismissed along with listed application.

ADN/M-20/Sindh Application dismissed.