TARIQ MALIK vs MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ and 2 others
This matter concerns a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents. The case was initially registered under Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but during the investigation, this offence was dropped, and the charges were converted to Sections 452, 380, and 337-A(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the respondents were not entitled to bail, particularly given the allegations of house trespass and assault. The respondents contended that the parties were closely related, involved in ongoing civil litigation over property, and that the criminal case was motivated by mala fides. The Court held that the cancellation of bail is not warranted where the respondents have already joined the investigation, the case has been sent for trial, and there is no evidence of the respondents being previous convicts or having committed any overt acts since being granted bail. The Court emphasized that in the presence of civil litigation and the absence of fresh incriminating conduct, the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting bail should not be interfered with. The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
- Does the existence of prior civil litigation between parties regarding property ownership provide grounds to suspect mala fides in a criminal complaint?
- Is the cancellation of bail justified solely because the initial offence charged was dropped and replaced by lesser offences during the investigation?
- Should bail be cancelled if the accused has already joined the investigation and has not committed any overt acts since the grant of bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The respondents were admitted to bails in a case registered against them initially under section 395, P.P.C. Later on offence under section 395, P.P.C. Was dropped by the police during investigation and the Dffence was converted under sections 452, 380 and 337-A(II), P.P.C.
2. Cancellation is sought on the ground that respondents never applied for bail under section 337- A(II) but were admitted to bail by the learned lower Court along with offence under section 452/380, P.P.C. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents had no case for bail particularly for bail before arrest as they acted desperately by entering into the house of the complainant and had beaten one of the ladies.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that both parties are closely related to each other and after dropping offence under section 395, P.P.C., the application of offence under section 452, P.P.C. Had become doubtful because the respondents being co-sharers had a right to enter the property, regarding which they were pitched in civil litigation. Likewise offence under section 380, P.P.C. Was also deleted by the police after the deletion of offence under section 395 as aforesaid. In that situation, it was alleged that learned trial Court rightly granted pre-arrest bails to the respondents because mala fide could not be ruled out on the part of complainant on account of the litigation between the parties. In respect of offence under section 337-A(II), it is contended that the same was requested to be added through a separate application after the police had applied the same. As such there was no ground for the cancellation of bails.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that both the respondents are closely related to the complainant side and there is also admittedly civil litigation between them over some property. Respondents have already joined the investigation and the case has been sent to the Court for trial. Respondents are also not previous convict nor they had committed any overt act after having been admitted to bails by the learned trial Court. In such a situation, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for cancellation of bails granted to respondents. This petition is accordingly dismissed.