2014 PLP 2139 (YLR)

MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.

This revision petition has been filed against the order of Sessions Judge, Mirpur dated 25-1-2010, through which interim bail of respondent/accused Muhammad Latif was confirmed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that a criminal case was registered against the respondent/ accused along with another accused Jahangir under sections 419, 420 and 406 APC at Police Station Afzalpur. It was stated in the F.I.R. by the petitioner/ complainant Muhammad Maqsood that he sold the land measuring 04 Kanals and 09 Marlas to one Muhammad Razzaq against a price of Rs. 35 lacs. The accused Jahangir who is nephew of the petitioner/ complainant took the said amount and paid him Rs.10,000 and made a commitment to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.34 lacs and 90,000 in HBL. Pul Manda Branch. He deposited Rs.12 lacs in the said bank and the remaining amount of Rs.22 lacs and 90,000 kept with him with the connivance of the accused Muhammad Latif malafidely and fraudulently.

3. The accused Jahangir and Muhammad Latif approached Sessions Judge Mirpur from where they were granted interim bail. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled interim bail granted in favour of the accused Jahangir and confirmed the bail granted in favour of the respondent/accused Muhammad Latif. Hence, the instant revision petition.

4. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alam Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused Jahangir alongwith the respondent/accused Muhammad Latif misappropriated the said amount of the petitioner/complainant malafidely and fraudulently. The said amount has to be recovered from the accused persons, so the respondent/accused Muhammad Latif was not entitled for confirmation of interim bail. The learned counsel requested to cancel the bail of the respondent/accused.

5. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kamran Tariq Advocate, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the respondent Muhammad Latif has no concern with commission of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. That is why, he was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge Mirpur. The petitioner did not mention any of the requirements for cancellation of bail. Challan of the case has been submitted in the court. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Mirpur needs no interference by this court. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the instant revision petition and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments. 1999 PCr.LJ 883 2011 PCr.LJ 1354 Mr. Farid Anwar Assistant Advocate General, the learned counsel for the State owned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred carefully and minutely. It is an admitted principle of law that concession of bail cannot be withdrawn unless some cogent reasons exist. The petitioner has not mentioned any of the requirements for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent/ accused. The only allegation levelled against the respondent/accused is that the accused Jahangir misappropriated the said amount with connivance of the respondent/ accused Muhammad Latif. Challan of the case has been submitted in the competent court. The plea for cancellation of bail can be raised on the following grounds:-- "(i) that the order granting bail is illegal, perverse, passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail, factually incorrect or has resulted into miscarriage of justice; (ii) that the accused persons have misused the benefit of bail; (iii) that there is possibility of repetition of the offence charge with or commission with any other offence; (iv) that there is apprehension of abscondance of the accused; (v) that accused are trying to tamper with the prosecution evidence." In the present case, the petitioner did not mention any of the grounds mentioned above. The record available reveals that non of the above-mentioned grounds exist in the present case. In the light of what has been stated above, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge Mirpur regarding the respondent/accused while confirming interim bail are based on sound and cogent reasons, which need no indulgence by this Court. So, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. HBT/86/H.C.(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.