1977 PLP 469 (SCMR)

Ibne Ali, Additional Advocate‑General N: W. F. P. (No Advocate-on- Record with him) for the State. Date of hearing : 26th October 1976. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑The facts which have led to the filing of this petition were that there was previous litigation in regard to the possession of land from where the sugarcane crop was alleged to have been cut and it was the prosecution case that possession of the land alongwith the standing crop was delivered to the complainant In execution proceedings pursuant to a decree of the civil Court. "CVs case against thin appellants was that they were seen standing armed with rifle at Subah Wela' on 17‑11‑1975 at the spot when the crop was being cut by the labourers so as to deer persons from interfering with the cutting of the crop. The case was accordingly registered at the instance of the complainant Saifur Rehman under sections 148, 447 and 382 read with 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Bhadhbar, Tehsil and District Peshawar. The appellants were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar by separate orders dated 29‑1‑1976. Aggrieved by these orders the complainant moved the Peshawar High Court for the cancellation of the bail of the appellants. A learned Single Judge in the Peshawar High Court cancelled their bail by order dated 28.6‑1976. The appellants seek special leave to appeal against that order. They were allowed interim bail by this Court on 5‑8-1976 after notice to the Advocate‑General, N: W. F. P. but there was no representation by the State on that date. The factors which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Peshawar were that there was previous litigation in regard to the possession of the land and that since the appellants were not arrested from the spot their case was 'arguable' on merits in the context of the fact that there' was delay in the lodging of the First Information Report and the previous litigation which could equally furnish a ground for their false implication, though not expressly stated. The learned Single Judge while cancelling their bail held that there was evidence to sustain the recovery of the sugarcane crop cut from the land' coupled with evidence to show the presence of the appellants at the spot duly armed while the labourers were cutting the sugarcane crop 'presumably to dater the owners from intervention'. As such their case was covered by section 382, P. P. C., which offence was punishable with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and hence it was not a case for bail. On hearing the counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate‑General, N.W. F. P; we have dedicated to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose it of as such. We are, However, of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Session Judge in allowing bail to the appellants cannot be said to be injudicious or improper for the consideration which weighed in favour of allowing bail were germane to the issue as to whether they were reasonable grounds for believing that they were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. On this view of the matter the order did not require interference but the learned Single Judge while cancelling the bail has appraised the evidence collected by the investigating agency in a way as to give a finding on the culpability of appellants which was inappropriate at that stage, and no consideration was given to the factors which had weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to the appellants. We would accordingly set aside the order of the High Court and confirm the interim bail on the same terms. The appeal is accepted. Appeal accepted.