2026 PLP 287 (MLD)

Raza Ali Khan, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated December 2, 2024, passed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, (High Court), whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 was allowed.

2. The factual matrix underpinning the present criminal appeal is that an FIR was lodged at Police Station Saddar, Muzaffarabad, against the accused-respondent in respect of offences punishable under sections 337-D, 337-F(iii), 341, 34, and 324 of the APC, read with section 17(2) EHA and section 15(2) of the Arms Act. Following his arrest, the accused-respondent submitted a bail application before the Additional Tehsil Criminal Court No.01, Muzaffarabad on October 21, 2024, which was dismissed through order dated October 23, 2024. Subsequently, he filed a fresh bail application before the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad on October 30, 2024, which was also dismissed vide order dated November 5, 2024. Aggrieved, the accused invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which, through the impugned judgment dated December 2, 2024, allowed the petition and admitted the accused to bail upon submission of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-, giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, Advocate, contended that the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court is contrary to the settled principles of law, inconsistent with the facts, and unsupported by the material available on record. He argued that the High Court, while overturing the well-reasoned order of the District Criminal Court, failed to assign cogent or legally sustainable grounds. It was further argued that once bail has been denied by a competent Court, it cannot subsequently be granted in the absence of any compelling or exceptional circumstances. Learned counsel emphasized that even upon a tentative assessment, the accused's active and culpable involvement in the offence is prima-facie established. In this backdrop, he urged that the impugned judgment be set aside and the concession of bail be withdrawn.

4. Conversely, Mr. Sajid Maqbool, Advocate for the accused-respondent, defended the propriety of the impugned order, contending that the High Court judiciously exercised its discretion in granting bail. He maintained that once bail has been granted by a competent forum, its cancellation requires the presence of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, which are clearly absent in the present case. He further submitted that the accused-respondent was nominated by the principal accused after an unexplained delay of approximately nineteen days post-detention, casting serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations and suggesting a possible afterthought. In view of the foregoing, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard. Record has been meticulously examined. Ordinarily, this Court refrains from interfering in bail matters where the High Court has exercised its discretion, however, such discretion must be conformed to established legal principles and be exercised with caution, prudence, and judicial discipline. The jurisprudence on bail consistently enunciated by this Court, requires contextual evaluation of various factors including the gravity of the offence, severity of the prescribed punishment, and the tentative nexus of the accused with the alleged crime. It is a settled canon that no rigid formula can be applied in such matters and the Court, at bail stage, is not to undertake a detailed appraisal of evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, it appears from the record that the accused-respondent was not nominated in the FIR; rather, his arrest was solely based on the disclosure of the principal accused, who is alleged to have fired the shot. At this stage, there is not independent or corroborative material to prima facie establish his presence or active participation at the scene of occurrence. The allegation of association with principal accused remains unsubstantiated and falls within the realm of further inquiry. The appellant's counsel has not demonstrated any legal infirmity or perversity in the Impugned judgment to justify interference. At the conclusion of the arguments, counsel for the appellant submitted that he would not oppose disposal of the appeal if a direction is issued for expeditious conclusion of the trial and liberty is granted to seek cancellation of bail, should any fresh ground emerge during the tiral. Counsel for the respondent also consented to this course. In view of the consensus and the preceding discussion, this Court finds no justification, at this stage, to interfere with the bail granting order of the High Court. However, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach the competent forum for cancellation of bail, if any fresh material surfaces during the trial. Since the report under section 173, Cr.P.C has already been submitted, the trial Court is directed to proceed expeditiously and conclude the trial without undue delay, uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JK/60/SC(AJ&K) Order accordingly.