1999 PLP 748 (MLD)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus FATEH SHER and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 748 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus FATEH SHER and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 748 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 748 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 748 (MLD) (GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus FATEH SHER and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shehryar for Petitioner.
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan and Syed Iqbal Husain Shah for Respondents No.1 to 3.
- 4. Conversely, contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted/repudiated and denied by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. He argued that as a result of successive investigation, respondents No.1 to 3 have been found innocent and this fact alone was sufficient to make the case open for further inquiry. He next urged that the mere fact that case was fixed for trial does not debar the Court to grant bail. He asserted that once bail has been granted, the prosecution should make out strong case for cancellation not by making allegations, but by giving substantive proof of such allegations and relied upon Government of Sindh through the Chief Secretary, Karachi and 4 others v. Raeesa Farooq and 5 others (1994 SCMR 1283). He next argued that opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding on Court, yet it can be taken into consideration while pressing a bail petition. He thus submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and it does not call for any interference.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34
Bail, cancellation of-- Cancellation of bail was sought mainly on the ground that once Trial Court had fixed case for recording evidence, it should have restrained from granting bail lest it should affect the final disposal of case
Ground urged for cancellation of bail was devoid of force, because it reflected only apprehension and was not based on any substantive proof
Bail once granted could only be cancelled, if strong and exceptional grounds were given
No such exceptional circumstances existed warranting any change in order granting bail to accused
Record showed that as a result of successive investigations, accused had been found innocent-- Order granting bail to accused not calling for any interference, was maintained.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Naveed Shehryar for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan and Syed Iqbal Husain Shah for Respondents No.1 to
3. Nemo for the State. Respondents No.1 to 3 stand charged under section 302/34, P.P.C vide F.I.R. No.63 dated 10-9-1997 registered at P.S. Dullaywala Khargi Tehsil Darya Khan District Bhakkar.
2. The respondents applied for post arrest bail which was granted by the lower Court vide order dated 2-4-1998. Having felt aggrieved of the said order, the complainant/petitioner has filed the instant petition for the cancellation of said order.
3. The main grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court adjourned the case on 1-4-1998 for prosecution evidence to be recorded on 27-4-1998, 28-4-1998 and 29-4-1998 and on the next day i.e. 2-4-1998, released the accused/respondents on bail though all of them have been specifically named and a specific role had been attributed to each of them. He thus submitted that the said order be recalled.
4. Conversely, contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted/repudiated and denied by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to
3. He argued that as a result of successive investigation, respondents No.1 to 3 have been found innocent and this fact alone was sufficient to make the case open for further inquiry. He next urged that the mere fact that case was fixed for trial does not debar the Court to grant bail. He asserted that once bail has been granted, the prosecution should make out strong case for cancellation not by making allegations, but by giving substantive proof of such allegations and relied upon Government of Sindh through the Chief Secretary, Karachi and 4 others v. Raeesa Farooq and 5 others (1994 SCMR 1283). He next argued that opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding on Court, yet it can be taken into consideration while pressing a bail petition. He thus submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and it does not call for any interference.
5. Cancellation has been sought mainly on the ground that once the trial' Court had fixed the case for recording evidence, it should have restrained from granting bail, lest it affects the final disposal of case. The stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any substance. It reflects only apprehension and is not based on any substantive proof. Admittedly, bail once granted can only be recalled, if there are strong and exceptional grounds for the same. No such exceptional circumstance exists warranting any change in the impugned order. On the other hand, it has come on record that as a result of successive investigations, respondents have been found innocent.
6. Looking the matter from any angle, the impugned order does not call for any interference, as such, the same is maintained and the petition is dismissed. H.B.T./C-89/L Petition dismissed.