KH4LID vs HAKEEM KHAN and anothers
This criminal matter arises from a bail cancellation application filed by the complainant against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mardan, which granted pre-arrest bail to the accused-respondent in a case registered under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station "B" Division, Mardan. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail granted to an accused assigned the role of grappling should be cancelled, particularly when the complainant has already compromised with the main accused charged with effective firing. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that the bail-granting order was neither perverse, arbitrary, nor obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, the accused was assigned a lesser role of grappling, a compromise had been reached with the principal offender, and the accused had not misused the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that bail once granted will not be lightly interfered with or cancelled in the absence of perversity, misuse of concession, or extraordinary circumstances, especially where the accused's role is minor compared to co-accused who have been compromised with.
- Whether pre-arrest bail granted to an accused assigned a minor role of grappling should be cancelled when the complainant has compromised with the main accused?
- What are the grounds for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once it has been confirmed by a lower court?
- Does a compromise with the main offender affect the continuation of bail for a co-accused with a lesser role?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No,117, dated 13-2-2001 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station "B" Division, Mardan the accused-respondent applied for ad interim pre- arrest bail in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mardan, which was granted and confirmed on 8-5-2001. The complainant being not satisfied with this order filed this application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent.
2. I have heard Mr. Yousaf Shah, Advocate the learned counsel representing the petitioner at length and am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 8-5-2001 for the reasons firstly, the accused-respondent has been assigned the role of grappling only. The complainant has compromised the matter with the main accused who had been charged for effective firing and whose case stood on higher pedestal than that of accused-respondent. Secondly, the bail granting order is neither perverse nor arbitrary nor fanciful nor the same has been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Thirdly, the accused-respondent has not misused the concession of bail till date.
' Consequently, the bail cancellation application is dismissed in limine.