State Versus Azmina
Order
Ali Baig, C.J .--- The instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner /complainant against the impugned judgment/order dated 16-08-2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge District Nagar, whereby the learned Sessions Judge District Nagar has released the respondents/accused on bail.
1.(sic) Precisely, stated the allegation against the respondents/accused as disclosed in the FIR is that the complainant namely Ghulam Haider son of Ali Madad resident of Nasir Abad District Hunza has lodged a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Nasir Abad District Hunza stating therein the present respondents/accused and their co-accused namely Sher Alam Alias Aman Ullah has abused and used filthy language and threaten him to kill him. Due to which the deceased namely Waqar Haider has committed suicide with .30 bore pistol.
2. After receipt of the complaint the concerned SHO has registered the above mentioned FIR, started investigation of the case, arrested the present respondents/accused and their co-accused. After completion of formal investigation the concerned SHO produced the present respondents / accused before the learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar with request to commit the accused/respondents to judicial custody. The learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar had released the above named accused/respondents on bail instead of committing them to judicial custody vide order dated 16-08-2025.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/ order passed by learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar the present petitioner/complainant has filed the instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C before this Court seeking cancellation of bail facility extended to the respondents/accused.
4. The learned Dy.A.G assisted by learned counsel for the complainant argued that the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar is against the law and the facts on the record of the case, hence, liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the accused/respondents are directly nominated in the FIR with specific role. The offence under section 322, P.P.C mentioned in the FIR is not bailable. The learned Dy.A.G learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the order passed by learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar is result of misreading and non-reading of material available on the record of the case. The learned Dy.A.G learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar is illegal, perverse, fanciful, without merit and arbitrary, hence, liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the learned District and Sessions Judge Nagar has failed to issue notice to state as well as complainant before passing the impugned order hence, the order passed by the learned District Judge Nagar is unheard hence, liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G learned counsel for the complainant lastly submitted that the instant petition may be accepted and the accused/ respondents may be committed to judicial custody by cancelling their bail facility to meet the ends of justice. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has relied upon judgments of superior Courts reported as 2004 PCr.LJ 968, 2009 YLR 1818.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused / respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and submitted that the respondents/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case by the police in league with the complainant with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the accused / respondents further submitted that no any incriminating material has been recovered from the present respondents/ accused and the co- accused of the present respondent has already been granted bail by trial Court, hence, rule of consistency applies to the case of the present respondents/accused. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents further submitted that there is one month and 02 days delay in lodging of FIR. The learned counsel for the accused /respondents further submitted that there is no punishment of imprisonment has been provided for offence under section 322, P.P.C while rest of the offences are bailable and do not fall under the prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C hence, the case of the present respondents/accused requires further inquiry. The learned counsel for the accused / respondents further submitted that prosecution has failed to collect postmortem report of the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused / respondents further submitted that the order passed by learned trial court is result of correct appreciation of law and material available on file and petition in hand has been filed with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the accused / respondents further submitted the order passed by the learned trial court may be maintained by dismissing the instant petition to meet the ends of justice. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused has relied upon judgments of superior Courts reported as 2025 PCr.LJ 1341, 2023 PCr.L J Note 20, 2005 YLR 1968 Lahore and 2022 SCMR 515.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have minutely gone through the available record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly offence under section 322, P.P.C though is non-bailable but is not punishable with any period of imprisonment except the payment of Diyat. It is settled principle of law that where criminal liability of an accused of an offence is Diyat only, the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Offence under sections 500 and 506, P.P.C are admittedly bailable. Moreover, both the respondents /accused are women and without there being strong evidence against them, it would not be in the interest of justice to give them to police custody.
8. Moreover, co-accused of the present respondents/accused namely Sher Alam has been released on bail by the learned trial Court, hence rule of consistency applies to the case of the present petitioner/accused. The accused/respondents have remained in police custody for about six days and investigation has been completed by the police.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that both the accused/respondents being women, their case falls within the ambit of proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the present petitioner/complainant and DAG has failed to agitate grounds for cancellation of bail. Furthermore, it is settled principle of law that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the concession of bail.
10. The upshot of above discussion is that this petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. File
JK/42/GB Petition dismissed.