THE STATE through Advocate General, Peshawar vs LAIQ KHAN
The State, through the Advocate General, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Laiq Khan, by the Sessions Judge, Karak. The respondent had been arrested for possession of an unlicensed .303 bore rifle and live rounds. The State contended that the lower court's order was mechanical and lacked judicial application, arguing that sufficient material existed to connect the respondent to the offense. The High Court, upon review, held that the bail-granting order was neither perverse nor illegal. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds, such as the accused repeating the offense, tampering with evidence, hampering investigation, or fleeing. Finding that the trial court exercised its discretion properly and not in a fanciful or arbitrary manner, the High Court dismissed the application for bail cancellation in limine.
- What are the specific grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does the mere existence of material connecting an accused to an offense justify the cancellation of bail?
- Under what circumstances will a High Court interfere with the bail-granting discretion of a trial court?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
ORDER
' State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar has filed instant application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1477 of 2001) under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Seeking cancellation of bail of Laiq Khan respondent granted to him by Sessions Judge, Karak vide his order, dated 20-9- 2001 Police Station Banda Daud Shah under. Section 13, Arms Ordinance, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991.
2. On 21-8-2001 complainant Hussain Shah, S.H.O. Police Station Banda Daud Shah, on receipt of information about a dispute in between Laiq Khan respondent and Roghan Badshah, residents of Mir Kalam Banda, over womenfolk, reached the spot i,e, Village Mir Kalam Banda. The respondent came out from his house duly armed with .303 bore rifle. On seeing the police party, the respondent tried to run away from the spot but he was chased and overpowered by the police. A rifle of .303 bore alongwith four live rounds was recovered from his possession.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned State Counsel vehemently contended that sufficient material was brought on record to connect the respondent with the guilt and as such the learned Sessions Judge, had no justifiable reason to accept the application of the respondent and admit him to bail. The learned counsel maintained that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, cannot be sustained.
4. Having heard the arguments of learned State Counsel in the light of the material on file I find that the bail granting order is neither perverse nor illegal warranting interference of this Court. It needs no reitration that once a Court of competent jurisdiction passes bail order, very strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the same. The bail can be cancelled where the person on bail repeats the offence, hampers the investigation, makes some efforts to tamper with the evidence, commits some acts of violence against the police and prosecution witnesses or manages to flee away from the country or beyond the control of sureties. The State v. Ali Muhammad 1993 PCr.LJ 519, S. Amanullah Shah v. The State 1996 SCMR 241, Gulzar Ahmad v. State 1997 M LD 1606, Tariq Bashir v. State PLD 1995 SC 34 and Usman v. Muhammad Azam and another 2001 PCr.LJ 1461.
13 ' Having held that competent Court has granted the bail to the respondent at its discretion which does not appear to be fanciful, perverse or arbitrary, I am of the view that the trial Court has exercised its discretion properly which warrants no interference of this Court. The application fails which is hereby dismissed in limine.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed MUHAMMAD ROBAN SHAH and others vs THE STATE and others 2005 P C R L J 319
- Syed MUHAMMAD ROBAN SHAH Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 319