2010 P Cr (PLP)
WAHABUDDIN — Petitioner Versus FAYYAZ KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAHABUDDIN — Petitioner Versus FAYYAZ KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (WAHABUDDIN — Petitioner Versus FAYYAZ KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
- Barrister Masood Kausar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324,447/148/149
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and criminal trespass
Cancellation of bail, petition for
Grounds for grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail granted by a competent court were totally different
Strong and cogent reasons were required for the recall of bail granting order for instance, if the bail granting order was perverse or in disregard of settled principles regulating the grant of bail or, which was based on no material/evidence or accused after grant of bail had misused the concession so extended to accused
Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant was unable to put forth any of the said principles governing the cancellation of bail
No such other circumstance was pointed out which could have helped him in support of the petition for cancellation of bail
Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail of accused within ambit of law.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.
Through the present petition, the complainant of the case F.I.R. No. 600, dated 15-7-2009 Wahab-ud-Din has approached this Court for cancellation of bail before arrest granted to Fayaz Khan and Yasin Khattak, complainant and the eye-witness of case F.I.R. No.590, dated 12-7-2009.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15-7-2009 at 13-00 hours, Wahabuddin complainant reported the matter to the police in writing that at the fateful time, he along with his other fellows was on duty at Khushal Garden when in the meantime, Fayyaz, Asad Ayaz, Yasin Khattak and Kamal Bacha along with 4/5 other unknown persons armed with Kalashnikovs and pistols came there and opened indiscriminate firing at them. They took shelter and resorted to aerial firing in self-defence. Motive for the offence was stated to be a dispute over the land/scheme of the garden.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the grounds for grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court are totally different. Strong and cogent reasons are required for the recall of the same, for instance, if the bail granting order is perverse or in disregard of settled principles regulating the grant of bail or which was based on no material/evidence or the accused after grant of bail has misused the concession to extended to the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to put forth any of the above settled principles governing the cancellation of bail. Similarly no such other circumstance was pointed out which could have helped him in support of his petition.
4. While keeping in view the circumstances and facts of the present case, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV has rightly confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail of the accused respondents within the ambit of law. Thus, this petition for cancellation of bail being without any merits is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./89/P Petition dismissed.