Mst. SAIRAN BIBI vs THE STATE And 4 Others
This petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiqabad, in a case registered under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the trial court acted improperly by granting bail despite a pending application before the High Court seeking the transfer of the case, which had resulted in an order directing the trial court to refrain from passing a final judgment. The respondents argued that the High Court's directive did not preclude the trial court from passing interim orders such as bail. The Court held that while the trial court should have exercised caution following the High Court's directive, the cancellation of bail was not warranted in this instance. The Court emphasized the significant delay in reporting the incident, the existence of prior enmity between the parties, and the lack of evidence suggesting the respondents misused the concession of bail. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed, reaffirming that bail should not be cancelled absent compelling grounds or misuse of the liberty granted.
- Does a High Court order directing a trial court to refrain from passing a final judgment automatically preclude the trial court from passing interim orders like bail?
- Is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor in determining whether to cancel bail?
- Can bail be cancelled solely on the ground that the trial court proceeded with the matter despite a pending transfer application, absent evidence of misuse of bail?
- Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.2 to 5 in case F.I.R. No.212 registered at Police Station Saddar Sadiqabad, on 3-7- 1999, for offence under section 354-A, P.P.C., by Mr. Muhammad Islam, Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiqabad, vide order dated 22-9-2001.
2. According to F.I.R., the respondents criminally assaulted upon the complainant, tore her cloths and after denuding her left the scene of occurrence alongwith Chadar of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the bail has been granted to the respondents due to mala fide reasons, as prior to passage of bail granting order, the petitioner had moved an application (Criminal Miscellaneous No.58-T of 2001) seeking withdrawal of the bail application as well as the main case from the aforementioned Court, before this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 19-9-2001 directed the trial Court not to pass final judgment. They have further contended that despite that fact, which was in the knowledge of the trial Court, respondents were admitted to bail vide impugned order.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has justified the order of grant of bail in the circumstances of the case and has submitted that the order dated 19-9-2001 passed by this Court related to the passing of the final judgment and it did not relate to the interim orders, bail granting order or recording of evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the State has adopted the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I feel that the learned trial Court should not have passed any order after passage of order dated 19-9-2001 by this Court but the matter relates to the liberty of the respondents and it is to be seen whether in the circumstances of the case bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled or not. In this regard I have noticed that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than one year, one month and eighteen days. The respondents had got a case registered through F.I.R.
No.202 of 1998 for offences under sections 302/109/148 and 149, P.P.C. Prior to the instant case, wherein Irshad complainant's son (in the present case) was mentioned as accused and in the background of enmity and ill-will the delay in reporting the matter to the police attains significance. There is no allegation that after their release on bail, the respondents had been misusing the concession. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to cancel the bail of the respondents, therefore, I dismiss this petition.
Cited by 3 cases
- Raja LAL KHAN vs Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 2 others 2015 PLJ AJ&K 188, 2015 CLC 727
- Nasir Mdhmood vs Ashfaq And Another K.L.R. 2006 Criminal Cases 399
- NASIR MAHMOOD vs ASHFAQ and another 2007 P Cr. L J 713