MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE and 2 otherss
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, vide order dated 13-12-2001. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail to accused persons whose pre-arrest bail applications were previously dismissed, and whether the High Court should interfere with a discretionary order of bail passed by a subordinate court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. The Court affirmed that the respondents were found innocent during investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, no crime-empty was recovered from the spot, and no firearm was recovered from them. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with a discretionary order of bail passed by a lower court unless the order is arbitrary, capricious, or against the record.
- Are the considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest different?
- Will the High Court interfere with a discretionary order of bail passed by an Additional Sessions Judge unless it is arbitrary or capricious?
- Does placement of an accused in Column No. 2 of the challan constitute a relevant consideration for the grant of post-arrest bail?
ORDER
' This is an application for cancellation of to respondents Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide his order dated 13-12-2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are named in the F.I.R., specific roles were attributed to them, that their application for bail before arrest not only by this Court but also by the same learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on merits, that respondents are threatening the prosecution witnesses, that challan has been submitted in the Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, it is correct that application for bail before arrest of the respondents was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 22-10-2001 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,5708/B of 2001. It is settled law, that considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. I have gone through the impugned order dated 13-12-2001. In the instant case, three considerations were available before the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to the present respondents which is as under:--
(1) Present respondents were found innocent and were placed in Column No,2 of the challan.
(2) No crime-empty was taken into possession from the spot.
(3) No recovery of any fire-arm was affected from the present respondents.
' I am in full agreement with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. Moreover, considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and' after arrest are totally different. It is a settled law, that this Court does not interfere in the discretionary order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge unless the same is arbitrary, capricious and against the record which is not present in the instant case. No ground for interference is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine.
Petitiqn dismissed.