2012 PLP 630 (YLR)

SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

Petitioner Taj Muhammad son of Nawab Deen has made the present petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 namely Jhangsher son of Akbar Ali on 7-5-2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari in case F.I.R. No.33 of 2009 dated 31-8-2009 under sections 302/34/201/365-B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offences with which the respondent has been charged were non-bailable and fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. but the learned trial Court has confirmed the pre-arrest bail without considering the facts of the case and granted extraordinary concession to the respondent, therefore the bail is liable to be cancelled.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that initially the case was registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. wherein after arrest bail was granted to the respondent and later-on the offence under section 302, P.P.C. was added. The allegation against the respondent was only that he threw the dead body of Mst. Amina in the bushes, therefore the learned trial Court has rightly confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner and there is no cogent reason to withdraw the said concession. Further contends that the respondent has not misused the concession of bail granted to him. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Barkat Ali Shaikh v. Qurban Shaikh and 3 others (2010 MLD 716), Shabbir-ul-Hassan v. Syed Zahid Hussain and another (2008 MLD 449) and Muhammad Ilyas v. Abdul Latif and another (2010 MLD 1530).

4. Case F.I.R. No.33 of 2009 was originally registered against the respondent No.2 Jhangsher and others under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Machiwal District Vehari for the abduction of Mst. Amina Bibi, the Bhanji of the complainant. According to the said F.I.R. on 30-12-2008 when the complainant was out of his house in connection with manual work Mst. Sajida accused who was having visiting terms came in the house of the complainant and asked the Bhanji of complainant that she has to go Burewala in connection with some urgent work and also requested her to accompany her and when his Bhanji did not return, he became worried about her and started her search and when reached at Machewal Chowk, he was informed by Zeeshan Majeed that the accused namely Nazir Ahmad son of unknown, Nazir Ahmad son of Muhammad Ramzan, Imdad Hussain son of Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Ramzan son of Shabbir Ahmad, Mehmood Akbar son of Akbar Ali, Jhangsher son of Akbar Ali, Sajida wife of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Younas son of Akbar Ali enticed away Mst. Amina Bibi on Hiace Dallah towards Burewala. Originally the F.I.R. under section 365-B, P.P.C. was recorded and thereafter on the supple-mentary statement of the complainant, the offences under sections 302 and 201, P.P.C. were added. In the supplementary statement, the complainant has stated that Dr. Liaqat Ali, Dr. Afzal and Mehmood Akbar came to him and they admitted their guilt before him turn by turn in presence of Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Shafiq and the respondent No.2 confessed before the complainant that on instigation of Dr. Liaqat Ali and Mehmood Akbar he threw the dead body of Mst. Amina Bibi in the bushes near the main road, Renala Khurd District Okara.

5. According to the supplementary statement of the complainant/the present petitioner Taj Muhammad, Mehmood Akbar the accused brought Mrs. Amina Bibi his wife at the Clinic of the Dr. Liaqat Ali for the purpose of D.N.C. where she expired and in order to conceal the body, the respondent Jhangsher was summoned who put the dead body in a car and threw it in the bushes.

6. The learned trial Court has confirmed the pre-arrest bail of Jhangsher on the ground that extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent No.2 and other before the complainant, is a very weak type of evidence Furthermore, the role assigned to him is concealment of the dead body which is bailable.

7. Now it is settle law that considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different from those required for grant or refusal of bail. Once the accused has been admitted to bail or his pre-arrest bail is confirmed by a competent court of jurisdiction, then extraordinary circumstances are required to interfere with the said order. The most important in the application for cancellation of bail is the conduct of the parties after bail and the factors to be considered in the cancellation of bail are that whether the party misused the facility of bail or is likelihood to abscond from the jurisdiction of the court and whether the party is hampering the investigation or is threatening to the witnesses or is creating obstruction in the course of justice. In this case there is no allegation that respondent No.2 had misused the concession of bail or he is likely to abscond or he is creating any hindrance in the fair investigation of case or he has threatened the witnesses. Therefore, there is cogent reason or legal justification to withdraw the extraordinary concession granted to the respondent No.2 by the competent court of law especially when the allegation against the respondent No.2 is that he had allegedly concealed the dead body and has committed the offence punishable under section 201, P.P.C. which is bailable. No role has been attributed to him in the commission of offence allegedly committed under section 302, P.P.C. He had already been enlarged on bail under section 365-B, P.P.C. by the competent court of law. The impugned order confirming the pre-arrest bail of respondent No.2 is in accordance with law. The same is hereby maintained. The petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./T-27/L Petition dismissed.