AZAIDA BIBI vs DOCTOR KHAN and 4 others
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant, Mst. Azaida Bibi, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Karak, in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the respondents, who were charged with effective firing in a domestic dispute, warranted cancellation after the submission of the challan and the commencement of the trial. The Court held that the petition for cancellation of bail should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that since the trial had already commenced and the injury sustained by the complainant was reported as simple, the determination of common intention was a matter for the trial court. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that once bail is granted by a competent court, it cannot be cancelled without the presence of strong and exceptional grounds, which were found to be absent in the present case. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order of the Sessions Judge.
- Is the commencement of trial a relevant factor in determining whether to cancel previously granted bail?
- Are strong and exceptional grounds required to cancel bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
- Does the absence of a specific positive role attributed to an accused in a case of effective firing justify the cancellation of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' This application has been preferred by Mst. Azaida Bibi, petitioner for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents namely, Doctor Khan son of Islam Gul, Ayub Rehman son of Hati Khan, Hati Khan son of Rasheed Gul and Asmatullah son of Mehrban, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karak vide his order,, dated 22-4-1999. The respondents Ayub Rehman, Hati Khan and Asmatullah moved application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Karak while respondent Doctor Khan whose bail application was refused by the Judicial Magistrate, moved separate application for bail. All the respondents are involved in case F.I.R. No,21, dated 30-3-1999 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Kurram, District Karak.
2. The occurrence in the instant case was reported by Mst. Azaida Bibi complainant in Police Station Kurram, District Karak on 30-3-1999 at 8-30 hours wherein she charged all the respondents for effectively firing at her. She has alleged in her report that the occurrence was also witnessed by Mst. Bibi Farhana her mother and the motive for offence was a domestic dispute.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned A.A.-G. For the State and have gone through the record of the case.
4. At the very outset the learned A.A.-G. Did not challenge the impugned order on the ground that challan in the present case has been submitted in Court and the trial has commenced. According to the learned A.A.-G. The case against the respondents is fixed for evidence in the trial Court. It is a case in which four persons of a family have been charged for effective firing and no positive role has been attributed to anyone of the respondents. The injury sustained by the complainant is reported to be simple in nature by the doctor on her thigh. Since the trial of the respondents has commenced and it is the duty of the trial Court to determine the question of common intention, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at this stage needs no interference because once bail is granted by a competent Court then some strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the same. These grounds, however, are not forthcoming on the record. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed.