2026 PLP 370 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of all the above titled bail cancellation petitions filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., as all the three petitions are outcome of a single FIR bearing No. 77/2023 registered at PS Jutial Gilgit.

2. The petitioner/State has filed the above mentioned petitions under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail allowed to the respondents/accused namely Azmat Ali Bogar. Sher Khan and Ifran Ali by the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit as well as Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit.

3. A brief sketch of the case as per contents of FIR is that on 09.05.2023, the respondents/accused along with other co-accused had blocked the road near Al-Fateh Departmental Store Jutial and raised slogans against Pak Army and the State of Pakistan. On written application of complainant namely Farid Ullah Advocate, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the accused/present respondents at Police Station Jutial District Gilgit.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the present respondents/accused had filed an application under section 497, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit for grant of post arrest bail. The learned Sessions and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit allowed bail petitions of the present respondents/accused, vide orders dated 02.12.2024 and 27.11.2024 respectively

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned Sessions/Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit dated 02.12.2024 and 27.11.2024, the State has filed three separate petitions for cancellation of bail of the accused/respondents.

6. The learned counsel DAG argued that the accused/respondents have been directly charged in the FIR with specific role of raising slogans against the Pak Army and the State of Pakistan, but the learned trial Court has totally ignored all these facts, hence the order of the learned trail Court is patently illegal and against the facts of the case. The learned DAG further argued that the learned Sessions Judge as well as Addl. Sessions Judge Gilgit have wrongly exercised their discretion in the instant case, hence the bail concession extended to the accused respondents may be recalled. The learned counsel DAG further argued that the accused are involved in an act against the State, hence the accused/ respondents are not entitled for concession of bail. The learned DAG further submitted that the accused will misused the concession of bail and they will involve in such like anti-State activities in future, hence, the bail facility extended to the accused may be recalled in the interest of justice.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned DAG by contending that exceptional circumstances are required to recall bail facility of an accused once granted by a competent Court of law. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents further submitted that in the instant case the learned DAG has miserably failed to agitate any single ground of bail cancellation, hence the bail cancellation petition filed by the State is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents further that despite lapse of years, the prosecution has failed to submit challan of the case in the trial Court, hence mala fide on the part of prosecution is apparent. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents further submitted that the grounds for cancellation of bail are much different from the grounds of granting of bail and in the instant petition the learned DAG has failed to establish the required grounds for cancellation of bail, hence, the instant petitions may be dismissed in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents has relied upon the reported judgments of superior Court reported as 2019 PCr.LJ Note 141, PLD 2019 High Court (AJ&K) 9 and 2019 YLR 2374.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record of the case with their able assistance

9. Admittedly, the learned Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit have granted post arrest bail in favour of the accused/respondents on merits after hearing the prosecution as well as the counsel for the accused/respondents.

10. The principle governing the grant and cancellation of bail are absolutely different and the grounds which may not be found favourable for allowing concession of bail to a person would not necessarily be good ground for cancellation of bail.

11. Once bail is granted to a person by a competent Court of jurisdiction normally can be cancelled by considering the following grounds - i. Bail was granted by a court having no jurisdiction to grant it; ii. The accused/respondent has misused the concession of bail and is causing fear and alarm to the complainant and prosecution witnesses; iii. The accused on bail hampers the investigation. iv. That there is likelihood of witnesses being won over. v. The accused was likely of abscond after grant of bail. vi. The bail granting order was arbitrary, capricious and against the evidence available with the prosecution. In the instant case the prosecution/State has failed to agitate any single ground for cancellation of bail in bail cancellation application/petition as well as in the arguments advanced by the learned DAG. Thus these petitions are prima facie not maintainable.

12. Moreover, FIR bearing No. 77/2023 has been lodged on 10-5-2023 but despite lapse of more than two years of the lodging of the FIR, the prosecution has not submitted challan/final report in the Court of competent jurisdiction, hence, false implication of the accused/respondents cannot be ruled out.

13. For what has been discussed above, these petitions being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. Certified true copy of this Judgment be placed on the file of Cr. Misc-(BCA) No.366/2024 and Cr.Misc-(BCA) No.367/2024. File. JK/36/GB ???