HABIB-UR-REHMAN vs REHMAT ULLAH and another
This criminal petition was filed seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that although respondent No. 1 was not nominated in the original First Information Report, he was subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal issue was whether the order granting pre-arrest bail was arbitrary or perverse so as to warrant cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that there was not an iota of oral or documentary evidence connecting respondent No. 1 with the alleged offence. The Court affirmed that once bail is granted by a competent court, very strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation, as the provisions of Section 497(5) are not punitive in nature.
- Whether bail once granted by a court of competent jurisdiction can be cancelled without very strong and exceptional grounds?
- Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled solely on the basis of a subsequent nomination in a supplementary statement when no other oral or documentary evidence exists?
- Are the provisions of Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 punitive in nature?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This petition is directed against the order dated 11-1.0-1999 of the Additional Sessional Judge, D.I.
Khan (Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan), whereby he accepted the pre-arrest bail application of Rehmatullah respondent No,1, in case registered vide F.I.R. No, 67, dated 9-7-1999, under section 302, P.P.C., at Police Station, Kulachi, District D.I. Khan.
2. Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard.
Record of the case, appended with the petition perused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though respondent No,1 was not charged in the F.I.R. but later, after thorough enquiry, the complainant, in his supplementary statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. charged him for the commission of the offence. He submitted that in the circumstances the grant of pre-arrest bail to him (respondent No,1) was not only perverse but was also arbitrary and required interference by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a fit case for the cancellation of bail. It is an admitted fact that respondent No, 1 was not named in the F.I.R. Besides there is not an iota of evidence, oral or documentary, to connect respondent No,1 with the commission of the offence charged with so as to warrant interference by this Court. If an authority is needed I am supported by a case titled "Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another" reported as PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241 (F.B.)" wherein it was held:--- "Once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation the same. Provisions of section 497 (5) Cr.P.C. are not punitive. There is no legal compulsion for cancelling bail granted in cases punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. To deprive a person of his freedom is most serious."
5. No reason exists and none indeed has been made out as to why this Court should interfere with the order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction which has neither acted perversely nor arbitrarily. This bail cancellation petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine.