2020 P Cr (PLP)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The respondent was charged in a case under section 302/34 vide FIR No. 19/2018, dated 04.06.2018 registered at Police Station Tangir.

2. The respondent was allowed bail by the learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 15-05-2019 and the State has filed the instant petition of cancellation for bail under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.

3. Notice was issued to the respondent through SSP Diamer on 18-06-2019 and in response to the notice dated above, the respondent is present in Court along with his learned counsel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the respondent did not engage a defence counsel just to prolong the trial with ulterior motives. The case was being tried by the learned Sessions Judge but the accused/respondent taking advantage of absence of the learned Sessions Judge, filed the bail petition in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed him bail. Per learned Dy. Advocate General/learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner the accused/respondent is directly charged in the FIR and the eye-witnesses have attributed specific allegations of opening fatal shot on the deceased by the respondent. Lastly that bail granting order is neither legal nor sustainable in the eyes of law and be recalled in the interest of justice. The learned counsel relied on 2017 YLR 103, 2009 SCMR 786, 2004 YLR 400 and 2010 PCr.LJ 396.

5. The learned counsel for respondent/accused submitted that the bail granting order has been passed after due application of judicial mind. The learned Sessions Judge was on a long leave and in the absence of learned Sessions Judge all the cases were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who competently disposed of the bail petition of the accused/respondent. Per learned counsel, there are no allegations of mis-use of bail concession and when bail is granted on the ground of further inquiry by a Court of competent jurisdiction, very strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation, which are not available to the petitioner. The learned defence counsel relied on 2010 SCMR 580, 2011 PCr.LJ 888, 2008 MLD 449, 1998 PCr.LJ 143 and PLD 1988 (AJK) 148.

6. The respondent/accused is directly charged in the FIR, with the specific allegations of causing fatal injuries on the person of deceased. The names of eye-witnesses are mentioned in the FIR as well as in the site plan and site inspection report, which were prepared on the very day of the occurrence. The eye-witnesses namely Wazir Rehman and Mst. Hamil have also charged the respondent/accused for commission of offence. The statement of the two eye-witnesses were recorded on the day of occurrence. During investigation of the case the weapon of offence AK-47 rifle has been recovered from the respondent/accused. There is a prima facie case against the respondent/accused and the reasons for grant of bail in the case in hand are not borne out from the record as the bail granting order is completely silent about the reasons which prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail to the respondent. Bail cannot be allowed to an accused mere on the ground of further inquiry, until and unless the Court comes to a definite conclusion that there are no reasons to believe that the accused has committed the offence charged with.

7. In view of above the petition filed by the State through learned Dy. Advocate General is allowed. The respondent is present in the Court, he is taken into custody and sent to Judicial Lock up to stand trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Chilas.

8. Registrar Chief Court is directed to issue committal order of the respondent. SHO/IO is directed to ensure safe transportation of the respondent/accused from Gilgit to Chilas and he may seek logistic support from SSP Gilgit, if so needed. MQ/81/GB Bail cancelled.