MUHAMMAD MANSHA vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail previously granted to the respondent in a case involving offences under Sections 406 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that bail should be cancelled because the recovery of the stolen tractor remained outstanding and the respondent had allegedly threatened the complainant after being released. The Court examined the record and noted that the original bail order was passed after a full hearing and consideration of all facts, with no evidence of concealment by the respondent. Regarding the recovery, the Court held that coercive measures for recovery are not permissible in this context. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the allegation of misuse of bail as a bald assertion, noting the lack of specific details, dates, or witnesses regarding the alleged threats. Emphasizing that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed based on private grudges, the Court held that bail cancellation requires substantial grounds, which were absent here. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
- Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled based on a bald assertion of threats without specific details or witnesses?
- Are coercive measures permissible for the recovery of property in a case where pre-arrest bail has been granted?
- Does the failure to recover case property constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner has sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Maqsood Ahmad-respondent by this Court vide order dated 14-11-2001 in case F.I.R. No, 157 of 2000 registered at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal on 5-5-2000 for offences under sections 406/34, P. P.0 .
2. In support of this application the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the recovery of Tractor is yet to be effected and that after his release on bail, the respondent accused had been threatening the complainant-petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. The order dated 14-11-2001 was passed by this Court after providing full opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant could not point out any concealment of facts on behalf of the respondent-Maqsood Ahmed.
4. As far as the recovery of Tractor is concerned, suffice it to say that no coercive measures can be adopted for the recovery of the same and the law is very clear about it.
5.The allegation that respondent No, 2 Maqsood Ahmad had misused his bail by threatening the petitioner is only a bald assertion. Neither time nor any date has been mentioned nor any witness has been named before whom the respondent-Maqsood Ahmad extended threat. The liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed due to the private grudge A of a party. The State has also not moved for cancellation of bail. In these circumstances, this application having no merit stands dismissed in limine.