Muhammad Jahangir Versus Adnan Asif
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Criminal Court, Dadyal, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondent accused in a criminal case involving offences under sections 324, 341, 337(AF), 147, 148, 149, and 506 of the Azad Penal Code and section 15(2) of the Arms Act. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in granting bail in the absence of any fresh grounds, following multiple previous rejections of bail applications by both the trial court and the revisional court. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the impugned order was capricious and arbitrary, as it lacked any justification or fresh grounds for departure from previous orders. The Court emphasized that while an accused is not debarred from filing consecutive bail applications, each must be supported by fresh grounds. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a complainant's reluctance to record a statement does not justify bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where refusal of bail is the rule and grant is the exception.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail solely because the complainant is reluctant to record their statement?
- Can a court grant bail on a subsequent application without the existence of fresh grounds after previous applications were rejected on merits?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate or revisional court recall an order granting bail?
- Does the reluctance of a complainant to testify justify the grant of bail in offences falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Section 324, Azad Penal Code
- Section 341, Azad Penal Code
- Section 337(AF), Azad Penal Code
- Section 147, Azad Penal Code
- Section 148, Azad Penal Code
- Section 149, Azad Penal Code
- Section 506, Azad Penal Code
- Section 15(2), Arms Act
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure
1. Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J.---
2. Foreword:
3. The above titled revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal whereby accused respondent has been granted concession of bail.
4. Precise facts of the instant revision petition are, on the complaint made by respondent No.1 herein, FIR No.161/2024 was registered against the accused respondent in the offences under sections 324, 341, 337(AF), 147, 148 and 149 APC at police station Dadyal on 20.06.2024. During investigation offences under sections 506 APC and 15(2) AA were also added. After arrest the accused respondent filed application before the trial Court for his release on bail which was rejected. Second application was also rejected but the third bail application filed before the Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal was accepted vide its impugned order dated 28.03.2025 and the accused was released on bail, hence, the captioned revision petition.
5. STANCE OF THE PETITIONER:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that first application filed by accused respondent for bail after arrest was rejected on its merits, second application filed before the trial Court and Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal was rejected on the ground that no fresh ground is available to the accused respondent but astonishingly the third application filed by the accused respondent was accepted by the Additional District Criminal Court through the impugned order and he was released on bail despite the fact that no fresh ground was available to the accused, hence, the impugned order is against the settled principles governing the bail matters, thus, requested for acceptance of the captioned revision petition.
7. REFUTATION OF RESPONDENTS:
8. The learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order on all counts by submitted that the complainant is reluctant to record his statement and the offence under section 324 is yet to be determined after recording evidence thus, the bail granting order is liable to be maintained.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with care and caution.
10. COURT OBSERVATION AND THE RELEVANT LAW:
11. Under law an accused is not debar to file consecutive bail applications but for that purpose fresh ground should be available for filing next application and if no fresh ground is available to the accused the bail application is liable to be rejected on this sole ground.
12. I am aware of the fact that recalling bail granted order is a rare phenomena but where the bail granting order is capricious, arbitrary and against the principles governing the bail matters which resulted into grave miscarriage of justice the same can be recalled.
13. In the instant case challan was presented before the trial Court on 09.01.2025. The accused filed application for bail before the trial Court on 11.01.2025 which was rejected vide order dated 18.01.2025. He filed another application before the Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal on the same day on 18.01.2025 which was denied on 22.01.2025. Accused filed Second application before the trial Court on 24.01.2025 which was rejected on 29.01.2025. Another application filed by accused respondent before the Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal on 18.02.2025 was declined on 25.02.2025. The accused filed another consecutive application before the trial Court on 18.03.2025 which was disallowed on 21.03.2025 on the ground that no fresh ground is available to the accused, however, in the third round a bail application filed before the Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal was allowed vide its impugned order dated 28.03.2025 without considering that neither any fresh ground was available to the accused nor any justified reason was visible for bail, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable as being capricious, arbitrary, fanciful and against the settled norms of criminal justice.
14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that complainant is not willing to record his statement, hence, accused has rightly been granted bail has got no substance because if the complainant was not recording his statement the trial Court must proceed against him as per law in accordance with the provisions mentioned in Chapter VI of Criminal Procedure Code but grant of bail on this sole reason just after three months of submission of challan is neither desirable nor justified particularly in a case where lethal fire arm weapon with direct injury has been attributed to the injured person in an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C in which bail is an exception and refusal is a rule whereas conditions mentioned in section 497(2) Cr.P.C. have not been fulfilled. Reliance may be placed on 1998 SCMR 496, PLJ 1985 Supreme Court AJK 45 and 2004 PCr.LJ SC AJK 58.
15. All the ground taken by the Court below while allowing bail to the accused are capricious because previously in two rounds the trial Court as well as the Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal have denied the bail on merits of the case thus, at this stage it could not be held that section 324 is not attracted because the same plea has already been denied by the trial Court as well as by the Additional District Criminal Court Dadyal, so, the impugned order is liable to show the doors.
16. DISPOSAL:
17. The sum and substance of the above discussion is, the captioned revision petition is hereby accepted, the impugned order is recalled and the accused has been handed over to the police.
18. JK/2/AJK-HC Revision allowed.