State Versus NAQEEB SHAH

ORDER

ALI BAIG, J.--- Through the instant petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. the petitioner/State has sought cancellation of bail facility granted to the respondent/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit vide bail order dated 27-7-2018.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner/State had filed a similar petition for cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide bail order dated 10-11-2018. Hence, this petition.

3. Briefly allegations against the respondent/accused are that the respondent/accused and his co-accused have been issuing fake appointment orders against the various posts in Police Department to various individuals and have been extorting huge amount from innocent people and as such, they have committed offences of fraud, cheating etc.

4. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner/state contended that the respondent/accused in league with his co-accused has been issuing fake appointment letters to various persons in Police Department and has been extorting huge amount from the innocent persons, as such the present respondent/accused has committed an offence against the society. The learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that the respondent/accused had previously filed an application for grant of bail which was declined/dismissed up to this Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate has wrongly granted bail in favour of the accused/ present respondent which may be cancelled in the interest of justice.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/accused controverted the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General and contented that all star witnesses have belied their statements recorded by the Police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and in this connection they have filed affidavits in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit. The learned counsel for the respondent/ accused further argued that the petitioner has failed to agitate the grounds for cancellation of bail in it's petition hence, this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. From perused of record it transpires that earlier bail petition of the respondent/accused was dismissed by the learned trial court, Sessions Court, Gilgit as well as this Court and later on the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gilgit has granted bail in favour of the present respondent/accused on the fresh ground that almost all P.Ws had filed affidavits in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate belying/disowning their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. by the police.

8. Since the P.Ws have belied and disowned their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and have exonerated the present respondent/accused by filing affidavits in support of bail petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit which requires further inquiry and the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly granted bail in favour of the respondent/accused. Moreover, the learned Deputy Advocate General has not agitated grounds for cancellation of bail in his petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Principles of cancellation of bail are quite different from grant of bail. Once bail is granted by a competent Court of law, then it can be recalled only if it is shown that either the bail granting order was perverse or in utter disregard to the evidence of case which is not in this case.

9. Further more, no allegation against the respondent/accused is made that after his release on bail, he misused the concession of bail granted to him.

10. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition filed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed. File.

SA/9/GB Petition dismissed.