2005 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SHAREEFAN BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHAREEFAN BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SHAREEFAN BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Naveed Akhtar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.354, 452 & 34‑‑ Application for cancellation of bail ‑‑‑Un‑explained delay of one month and 26 days was in lodging F. I. R. and case of accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused, at the time of occurrence had been shown empty‑handed‑‑‑Impugned bail granting order had shown previous enmity between the parties and due to that reason case was registered against accused‑‑‑In absence of any valid ground for cancellation of bail, petition for its cancellation was, dismissed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Considerations‑‑‑Considerations for cancellation of bail were different from the considerations for grant of bail‑‑‑Court could cancel bail granted to accused which was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant; accused on bail had committed same offence for which he was being tried or had been convicted; accused on bail hampered the investigation; accused on bail had tampered with evidence; accused absconded after grant of bail; accused got bail on the basis of false averments regarding his age or illness, etc.; accused was impleaded as the principal offender in several cases which badly affected people at large as in the case of heroin smuggling; grant of bail to an accused would become a foundation of revenge against complainant party, prosecution or the witnesses and bail order of Subordinate Court was devoid of reasoning while granting bail and facts of case were fully implicating accused for attracting S.497(i), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Strong and exceptional grounds were needed for cancellation of bail when bail was granted by a competent Court. Muhammad Ramzan v. Taj Muhammad and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2006 and Bashir Ahmad v. Mirza Muhammad Ayub 1991 MLD 579 ref.
Judgment & Decree
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 attempted to abduct the petitioner as well as Mst. Manzooran Mai and her children but the learned Court below ignored this very aspect of the case and allowed bail to respondents. That the bail granting order is arbitrary, capricious and against .the law and facts of the case.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is unexplained delay of one month and 26 days in lodging the F.I.R. and case of the respondents does not fall within prohibitory clause. At the time of occurrence the respondents had been shown empty‑handed, while perusing the bail granting order impugned in this petition it has been found that there was previous enmity between the parties and due to this reason case was registered against the respondents/accused.
5. Considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. The superior Courts have laid down guiding principles for the subordinate Courts to cancel bail granted to an accused if:‑‑ (i) Bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it; (ii) the accused on bail commits the same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted; (iii) the accused on bail hampers the investigation; (iv) the accused on bail tampers with evidence; (v) the accused absconds after grant of bail; (vi) the accused got bail on the basis of false averments regarding his age or illness, etc; (vii) the accused was implicated as the principal offender in several cases which badly affect the society at large such as in the case of heroin smuggling; (viii) grant of bail to an accused has become a foundation of revenge against complainant party, prosecution or the witnesses; (ix) bail order of the Subordinate Court was devoid of reasoning while granting bail and facts of case were fully implicating the accused for attracting S.497(1), Cr.P.C. The above said principles have been referred to in Muhammad Ramzan v. Taj Muhammad and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2006. Strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation of bail when bail is granted by a competent Court, reliance in this behalf is placed upon Bashir Ahmad v. Mirza Muhammad Ayub 1991 MLD 579.
6. No ground exists for cancellation of bail. This petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S‑348/L Petition dismissed.