2011 P Cr (PLP)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Through the instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, the petitioner has called in question the wires of order dated 10-11-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal; whereby Munir Ahmed, Zafar Iqbal, Amir Ali, Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Ashraf alias Ilyas and Muhammad Sadiq, accused/respondents Nos.2 to 7 were admitted to pre-arrest bail, having been summoned in complaint case filed by the petitioner/complainant under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 10-11-2010 has been passed without observing the mandatory provisions of law. It is also argued that in fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration the gravity of the allegations and the fact that during the course of recording of cursory statements, sufficient material has come on record against the accused/respondents Nos.2 to

7. Learned counsel further contends that the learned court of first instance, failed to appreciate the material fact that the petitioner/complainant has been in physical possession of the disputed property, who was dispossessed by the accused/respondents and this allegation remained un-rebutted by the other side. Learned counsel next submits that the accused/respondents have been using undue influence in the society and they are also trying to tamper with the prosecution evidence. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner' has placed reliance on the following dictums of law: PLD 2009 Lahore 590 Shaukat Rasool v. The State and another 2009 YLR 1414 Noor Ahmed v. Ghulam Mustafa and another 2010 SCMR 1584 Fazal Ahmed v. Arif Anwar Saeed and another

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been afforded hearing at preliminary stage. I have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Narowal; whereby the accused/respondents Nos.2 to 7 were admitted to pre-arrest bail, in particular.

4. First of all I may observe here that main focus of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been stressing upon the case law cited by him and nothing has been uttered on merits to believe that the learned trial Court has gone beyond its judicial powers. Having much regard for the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through the same in detail; however, arrived at the conclusion that the same is quite distinguishable from the facts contained in the instant case. In the case titled Shaukat Rasool v. The State and another (PLC) 2009 LHR 590), offence under section 302, P.P.C., was involved, for which, needless to mention, normal sentence is death. Similar offence has been discussed in the case-law Noor Ahmed v. Ghulam Mustafa and another (2009 YLR 1414). In the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Fazal Ahmed and another v. Arif Anwar Saeed and another (2010 SCMR 1584), a quite different question has been determined. Therefore, the same, in no way, helps the petitioner's case in any manner whatsoever.

5. There is no cavil to this proposition that bail can be cancelled if the same has been granted in a capricious manner either without assigning reasons or on the basis of perverse or invalid reasons. Bail can also be cancelled if accused attempts to tamper with the prosecution evidence, hamper investigation, commits or attempts to commit the same offence or if he absconds after grant of bail. Similarly where the accused extends threats to the witnesses or hinders in conclusion of the trial. Moreover, if bail granting order is without jurisdiction, haying been passed without observing the mandatory provisions, this Court has ample powers to entertain application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Nevertheless the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused/respondents being influential persons are trying to tamper the prosecution evidence, however, I am astonished that not a single document has been produced in support of such contention.

6. Perusal of impugned order dated 10-11-2010 reflects that the same is well-versed and the reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are well-founded except qua terming the offence as bail-able one. However, it would not be out of context to mention here that it is established law that any finding or observation at bail stage is of tentative in nature and that does not put or imprint any impact in the trial. Even otherwise, in its ratio decidendi in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in para No.9 of the judgment had held as under: "The considerations for the grant of bail and for cancellation of the same are altogether different. Once the bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation thereof."

7. For the foregoing reasons, I find no force in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in 1imine. H.B.T./M-15/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.