1988 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S . 497‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of same held, were quite different. Malik Ghulam Haider for Petitioner. Sardar Ahmad Khan and Ehsan Ullah Khan for Respondents. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1988. This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to Dildar, Bashir and Phoolan respondents, by Malik Khizar Hayat, Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at. Police Station Liaquatpur, vide F.I.R. No.2/87.

2. The prosecution case is that Rana co‑accused was suspecting illicit relations of his sister Mst. Saeeda with Noor Din deceased. On the fateful day, he deceitfully summoned the deceased to his Dera. When the deceased came to his Dera, he alongwith Dildar, Bashir and Phoolan and another launched murderous assault on him. Rana and Dewaya co‑accused inflicted Sots. blows on the head and leg of Noor Din respectively. Noor Din fell on the ground. Bashir and Phollan respondents dragged him towards the room of the Dera. Dildar respondent inflicted Soti blow on the right arm of the deceased. After taking the deceased into the room of the Dera the three respondents and two co‑accused inflicted injuries with their Soties on the person of the deceased. The occurrence was seen by Jinda, Haleem and Shah Muhammad P.Ws. Noor Din in injured condition was removed towards his house by the aforesaid three eye‑witnesses, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail to the respondents on wrong facts and in his anxiety to release the respondents on bail, he had crossed limits fixed by the superior Courts. To canvass his view point the learned counsel addressed the Court at length. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He was of the view that since the motive alleged by the prosecution was suspicion of illicit relation of the deceased with the sister of Rana co‑accused and Noor Din was injured in the Dera of Rana, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly allowed bail to the respondents; that Rana and Dewaya co‑accused who according to the F.I.R. had inflicted injuries on the head and leg of the deceased having been found innocent, have since been discharged; that since the deceased was allegedly inflicted injuries by the respondents in the room of the Dera, therefore, the eye‑witnesses could not have seen the infliction of the injuries to him, and that the respondents have not misused the concession of bail, in any manner.

4. I have considered the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for motives best known to him has travelled beyond the scope of tentative assessment. His anxiety to release the respondents on bail is apparent on the face of his order. The relevant part of his order may be reproduced conveniently: It is thus very much obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given observations detrimental and prejudicial to the merits of the case. The superior Courts have disapproved appreciation of evidence and observations with regard to the nature of offence at bail stage, from time to time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has violated the guidelines given by the superior Courts for the appreciation of bail matter. It may be noted here that according to the prosecution case, Noor Din deceased was called to the Dera of Rana co‑accused deceitfully; that it was/is not the case of either party that the deceased was seen in compromising position with Mst. Saeeda or even sitting with her at or near the place of occurrence at fateful time; that there were/are no indications of her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence; eye‑witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. had stated that Rana co‑accused had called Noor Din deceased from his house and when he reached near the Dera of Rana, the respondent and their co‑accused straightaway launched attack on him; that in the peculiar circumstances of the case there was no occasion to make following observations: It was a case of merciless beating, resulting in death of Noor Din. As many as 21 injuries were inflicted on his person. The respondents were armed with Soties and had caused injuries to the deceased. According to 'the F.I.R. and the statements of the eye‑witnesses they had actively participated in the occurrence. Although, in view of the material available on record it could not be said that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents had committed the offence, yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed bail in a murder case quite contrary to the law laid down, in P L D 1985 SC 182). No doubt considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of the same are quite different, but the fact remains that in the instant case the bail was allowed to the respondents without legal and factual justification. That being the position, there is no option but to cancel the same. Order accordingly. The respondents are present in the Court. They may be taken into custody and produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who will, send them to jail as under trial prisoners.

9. The occurrence took place on 5‑1‑1987, but trial has not started so far. The learned trial Court will immediately fix the case for trial and conclude it within two months from today under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court, failing, which the respondents may apply for bail before the trial Court or before this Court. M.Y.H./J‑30/L Bail cancelled.