SHAD! KHAN vs HAZRAT UMAR and another
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court upon an application filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Special Judge, Lakki Marwat, in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide FIR No. 171 dated 19-6-1988 at Police Station Tajori. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail granted to an accused attributed a role of 'Lalkara' and found empty-handed, amidst a background of blood feud enmity and without any allegation of misuse of the concession of bail, warrants cancellation. The Court held that considerations for the cancellation of bail differ from those for its grant, and finding no misuse of liberty or compelling circumstances, declined to interfere with the order granting bail, while deprecating premature observations on merits made by the trial court at the bail stage. The application was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled when the accused is attributed the role of Lalkara and is empty-handed?
- Are considerations for the cancellation of bail different from those for the grant of bail?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to express definitive opinions on the merits of the case at the bail stage?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI, J.---Shadi Khan has moved this applications under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of bail before arrest granted to respondent No,1 in case F.I.R. No,171 dated 19-6-1988, registered at Police Station Tajori, under section 302/34, P.P.C., by the learned Special Judge, Lakki Marwat, vide order dated 4-7-1998.
2. After going through record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General, we find that respondent No,1 has been attributed the usual customary role of 'Lalkara', besides being empty handed. He was granted before arrest bail as far back as on 4-7-1998 and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has misused the concession of bail in any manner. There is also background of blood feud enmity between the parties. Admittedly, the considerations for the cancellation of bail are somewhat different and in view of these circumstances of the case we do not feel persuaded to interfere with his liberty. However, we would like to observe that expression of opinion such as expressed by the learned trial Judge to the effect that nothing is on record that the principal accused acted on the directions of the respondent or that he is declared innocent, are neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage, for either of the parties may entertain certain doubt. The application stands dismissed being devoid of merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.