NUSRAT BIBI Versus State
ORDER
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- Through this petition filed in terms of section 497(5), Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.2 to 4 by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2014, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.13606/B/2014, in case bearing FIR No.517/2014, dated 14.06.2014, offence under section 376-B, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this Court while adjudicating Crl. Misc. No.13606/B/2014, vide order dated 23.10.2014, confirmed ad-interim pre-arrest bail extended to the respondents while touching upon the merits of the case. The main crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact the Investigating Officer, who had entered appearance, has made statement before the Court that no such occurrence has taken place and while taking that statement into consideration, besides the other grounds, this Court extended the benefit, however, during the course of final adjudication, names of the respondents have been placed in column No.3 of report in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C and as such, the bail before arrest extended to them is required to be interfered because, prima facie, they are connected with the crime alleged as their names are placed in column No.3 of the report in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C.
3. Preliminary arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As far as the maintainability of the instant petition is concerned, the same has been filed with a delay of more than one and half years whereas it is established principle of law that the petition for cancellation of bail is to be filed with promptitude, which is squarely missing in the instant case. Guidance in this regard is sought from the judgments reported as Piaro v. The State and another (1984 PCr.LJ 149) and Nazar Muhammad v. The State and another (1977 PCr.LJ 277).
In the case of Piaro v. The State and another (1984 PCr.LJ 149) it has been held that:-
"----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Bail---Application for cancellation of---To be filed promptly---Private party, held, cannot be permitted to harass whenever it suits him or select his own timing for moving cancellation of bail."
It has also been held in the case of Nazar Muhammad v. The State and another (1977 PCr.LJ 277) that:-
"---S. 497(5)---Provisions regarding cancellation of bail---Not available to private parties to satisfy their grudges or to use as a means of wreaking their vengeance-Remedy, however, available in cases where reliable evidence forthcoming to indicate misuse of liberty to direct course of justice---Bail cancelled on grounds of reports of private individuals and non-appearance of petitioner at time of hearing---Veracity of such reports not above board and no specific direction given to petitioner to remain present at time of hearing but represented by counsel---Court, held, had no jurisdiction for cancelling bail, in circumstances---Order set aside."
5. Otherwise, consideration for grant of bail and cancellation whereof are entirely on difference footing. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34), wherein it has been held that:-
"9. The considerations for the grant of bail and for cancellation of the same are altogether different. Once the bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation thereof. To deprive a person on post-arrest bail of the liberty is a most serious step to be taken. There is no legal compulsion to cancel the bail of the accused who allegedly has committed crime punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years.
5. Even otherwise, the conditions laid down by the superior Courts regarding cancellation of bail are that:-
"(a) where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused; or
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence; or
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and or
(d) where the accused is a previous convict."
6. Admittedly, none of the conditions, mentioned above, has been violated; hence, filing of the petition for cancellation of bail is not maintainable.
7. Even otherwise, cancellation of bail by the superior Courts has not been given much importance, even in those cases where the order was perverse. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case of Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt and 2 others (1976 SCMR 360) wherein it has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that: -
"----Ss. 497/498---Bail---Supreme Court on being informed by Counsel for State that inquiry proceedings were likely to conclude soon refusing to interfere with High Court's order refusing bail to respondent---High Court, nevertheless, subsequently granting bail to respondents---Supreme Court, though not happy about Order thus passed, nevertheless, in view of there being nothing to show misuse of their privilege by accused not feeling advised to interfere with High Court's order at such stage---Petitioner advised to approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any one of respondents misuse privilege of bail at any time."
8. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances narrated above, this petition is devoid of any force, which is dismissed in limine.
WA/N-23/L Petition dismissed.