ABDUL AZIZ and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application where the petitioners challenged the cancellation of their bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had earlier been granted by the Illaqa Magistrate in F.I.R. No. 140 of 2003 under Section 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the cancellation of bail by the lower appellate court was justified on the grounds of alleged tampering with evidence and threats to witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the bail cancellation was unjustified because the police diary report regarding threats was dated subsequent to the filing of the bail cancellation application, rendering it an afterthought, and no supporting affidavits from the threatened witnesses were produced. The court laid down the principle that bail already granted cannot be revoked on the basis of fabricated or subsequent afterthought allegations without cogent proof of the abuse of the concession of bail, thereby setting aside the cancellation and restoring the post-arrest bail to the petitioners.
- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled on the basis of an afterthought police report?
- Is an unverified allegation of threats to witnesses sufficient ground for the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
- Does the misuse of the concession of bail require cogent proof before bail can be withdrawn?
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' In F.I.R. No,140 of 2003, lodged on 4-5-2003 by Maqbool Ahmad informant, with the Liaqatpur Police District Rahimyar Khan under section 435, P.P.C., Illaqa Magistrate accepted the bail after-arrest application of the petitioners on 16-6-2003, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur cancelled the bail of the petitioners on 26-8-2003, granted by the Illaqa Magistrate. Hence, this bail after-arrest application.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the concession of bail withdrawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not in accordance with the settled principles propounded by the superior Courts for the cancellation of bail after arrest.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment.
4. I have perused the record of the case and heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State.
5. It is settled law that after extending the concession of bail to the accused, it can be withdrawn when there is abuse of the concession of the A to the accused. One of the grounds, which has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that the accused had hurled threats of dire consequences to the complainant as well as to the witnesses, and had tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has referred to Report No,17, dated 23-7-2003 which was got entered into by the complainant with the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. The application for cancellation of bail after-arrest already granted to the accused was moved by the complainant on 10-7-2003, while the alleged Report in daily diary of police station bearing No,17 depicts the date of 23-7-2003. This shows that the application for cancellation of bail was filed before getting the alleged report entered into the police station. Therefore, this was an afterthought mechanism adopted by the complainant which, could not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to cancel the concession of bail already granted to the accused/petitioners. Neither the affidavits of the witnesses nor any report from those witnesses, who were allegedly given the threats were produced alongwith the cancellation bail application. I, therefore, allow the bail to the accused in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
' The learned trial Court shall, however, be at liberty to take necessary action against the petitioners, if during the pendency of the case, the abuse of the concession of bail is found, in accordance with law