State Versus Muhammad Aslam Inqalabi

Order

Ali Baig, C.J .--- The instant petition under section 497(5) Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner/ State against the impugned judgment/order dated 18-07-2025 passed by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit in Bail Application No.320/2025 whereby the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit has allowed post arrest bail in favour of the present respondent/accused.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present petitioner/ complainant namely Suddair Ahmed Magistrate Second Class had filed an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station Airport Gilgit for registration of criminal case against the present respondent/ accused, and other stating therein that on 09-12-2024 at about 14:00 hours the present respondent/accused while addressing KNM/KSO activists who were gathered and were protesting at Press Club Gilgit against the arrest of their Ex-Chairman namely Javed resident of Rahim Abad Gilgit stating that State of Pakistan is involved in State Terrorism against the people since, 77 years through a forcible possession and the present puppet Government is creating issues like Kashmir. On written complaint of complainant the FIR bearing No. 107/2024 was registered at P.S Airport Gilgit against the present respondent/accused and his co-accused for offences under sections 123-A, 153, 505/34 P.P.C .

2. After registration of aforesaid FIR the concerned SHO arrested the present accused/ respondent and after completion of formal investigation, the SHO got committed the accused/ respondent to judicial custody. The respondent/accused had filed post arrest bail application in the Court of learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit which was allowed by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit, vide order dated 18-07-2025.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit the present petitioner/state has filed the instant petition before this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit.

4. The learned Dy.A.G argued that the order /judgment passed by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit is against the law and the facts of the case, hence, liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the accused/respondent is directly nominated in the FIR. The offences /sections reflected in the FIR are not bailable and fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the order passed by learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit is result of misreading of material available on the record of the case as specific role has been attributed to the present respondent/accused by the complainant. The learned Dy.A.G and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material to connect the accused/respondent with the alleged crime. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the order passed by the learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit is neither based on proper evaluation of facts nor law on the subject hence, the impugned bail order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G lastly submitted that the instant petition may be accepted and the accused/ respondent may be committed to judicial custody by cancelling his bail facility to meet the ends of justice. In support of his contention the learned DAG has relied on following case law:-

1. 1992 P C R.LJ 2346 Lahore. PC

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused / respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/state and submitted that the respondent/ accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the police in league with the complainant with ulterior motive. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted that FIR against the accused/ respondent has been lodged by an unauthorized officer and in violation of section 196 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for has not taken a the accused respondent further submitted that learned DAG single ground in contents of bail cancelled petition regarding cancellation of his bail facility. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted that the petitioner/state has failed to establish the grounds as required under law for cancellation of bail. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted that the judgment/order passed by learned the learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit is result of correct appreciation of law and material available on file and petition in hand has been filed with malafide intention by the complainant. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent lastly submitted that the complainant has not obtained permission from the Provincial Government, as required under section 196 Cr.P.C before lodging of FIR, hence, the instant petition for cancellation of bail may be dismissed and the order passed by the learned the learned Vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit may be maintained by dismissing the instant petition to meet the ends of justice.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have minutely gone through the available police record with their able assistance.

7. From perusal of record it transpires that the FIR was lodged in violation of section 196 Cr.P.C as under the aforesaid provisions of Cr.P.C, the complaint should be made by order or under the authority from Federal Government or Provincial Government concerned which is lacking in the instant case. Co-accused of the present respondent who were nominated in the FIR have been released on bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction, thus rule of consistency applies to the case of the present respondent. Moreover, deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible in case of bail or cancellation of bail where the Court of competent jurisdiction granted bail then strong grounds are required for its cancellation.

8. For cancellation of bail the Court has to see whether the accused after release on bail is creating hindrances for complainant party, or tampering with the prosecution witnesses or misusing the concession of bail or repeating the same offence. The record shows that all the aforementioned grounds/conditions are lacking in the instant case.

9. For what has been discussed above the for petitioner/ complainant having not made out a case cancellation of bail of respondent/accused, hence, this petition being bereft of merits is dismissed.

The instant petition along with Cr. Misc No. 407/2025 stand disposed of accordingly. File.

JK/45/GB Petition dismissed.