2026 PLP 742 (YLR)

Raja Shakeel Ahmad, J.

The above titled bail petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under section 497(5) read with section 561-A of Cr.P.C, against the impugned order dated 13-07-2024, passed by the learned Duty Judge/Sessions Judge, District Kharmang, whereby the learned Duty Judge/Sessions Judge Kharmang has granted concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused/ respondents Nos.1 to 10 by accepting the application under section 498 of Cr.P.C, filed by the accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 10.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that that on 26.06.2024, the petitioner/ complainant, Ghulam Hasnain registered an FIR at Police Station, Olding stating that on 25.06.2024, at about 1500 hours at the behest of the male accused/ respondents, the female accused/ respondents namely (1) Mst. Farzana daughter of Ali Cho (2) Mst. Razia daughter of Ghulam Hasnain and (3) Mst. Sania dauther Ghulam Nabi along with some other females suddenly entered into the house of complainant /petitioner, and beating her, dragged the wife complainant/petitioner (Mst. Khati) out of the house, whereon, his spouse reported the matter to the police personnel already deployed there for prevention of breach of peace and order saving her life. It was also alleged that accused/respondent namely Rizwan by grabbing a stone in his hand also threatened and tried to attack on his wife. Upon receipt of the said report, the Officer Incahrge, Police Station, Olding registered FIR No.3/2024 dated 26.06.2024, offences under Sections 452/354/506(1)/337-A/109/34 P.P.C and started investigation of the case. Having felt apprehension of their arrest, the present accused/respondents surrendered before the learned Session Judge, Kharmang seeking pre-arrest bail wherein they alleged that they are law abiding citizens; that the story of the FIR is based on mala fide and ulterior motives with the intention to defame the petitioners in the society; that the offences with which the petitioners/accused are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause and that in case pre-arrest bail is not granted the respondents/accused will face harassment in the hands of police.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contended that the learned Duty Judge/Sessions Judge Kharmang, has passed the impugned order by touching the merit of the case at bail stage. He submitted that the respondents/accused are involved in a heinous crime i.e. beating the wife of petitioner/complainant criminally trespassed the house of the petitioner/complainant in his absence. He further submitted that the accused /respondents have used ill-words while beating her with sticks, dragged her on the ground by pulling her hair and kicked her abdomen, as a result, she sustained serious injuries. He contended that the respondents/accused have committed the offences in presence of impartial eye-witnesses as such they were not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail but the learned Sessions Judge Kharmang has misconstrued the facts and granted pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners. He further argued that the respondents/accused have daringly violated the dignity of Chadar and Chardiwari by criminally trespassing the house of petitioner/complainant and also harassed the wife of complainant/petitioner badly beating her in front of her minor daughters in the absence of complainant/petitioner. He further argued that the ultrasound report, injury report and discharge slip reflect that the wife of petitioner/complainant has been badly attacked by the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 10 despite the fact that the prosecution has prima facie established the truth of the occurrence through impartial eye-witnesses. He further argued that the injury report clearly reflects that wife of petitioner/complainant has been undergoing blood urination, vomiting, nail scratch, and 5 to 6 bruises in leg. He further argued that sticks stones used in the beating the wife of petitioner/complainant are yet to be recovered from respondents/accused 1 to 10 and identification of some co-accused is also required through fair investigation which is possible by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2024. He lastly prayed that by accepting the instant petition, the impugned order dated 13.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kharmang may kindly be set aside and direct the respondent No.11 to arrest the accused/respondents to meet the ends of justice.

6. Adversely, learned counsel for the accused/respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 25.06.2024 at 1500 hours but the report has been lodged at police station after an unexplained delay of more than 12 hours while the distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station is only 13 Km. He further argued that no specific act has been attributed to the male respondent/accused except respondent/ accused Rizwan, who has been attributed the role of only taking a stone in hand and threatening the spouse of the petitioner/ complainant. He further argued that only general allegations have been alleged against the rest of the male respondents/ accused that on their whims, the female respondents/accused have committed the offences but no evidence is available on the record corroborating the accused with the guilt. Therefore, the case against the male respondents /accused being a case of further inquiry and involvement in the case with mala fide intention cannot be ruled-out. He further submitted that although the petitioner/complainant has charged respondent/accused Rizwan with the role of taking stone in hand in order to attack on Mst. Khati but the said petitioner has produced the receipt of Ali Khan Government Contractor and General Order Supplier issued by Hawaldar Niaz, showing that he works as a porter at Army Post named Alamdar-1 which shows that his time-in at the post was 1100 hours and time-out was 1530 hours, which shows that the accused/respondent Rizwan was not present at the time of occurrence. He further argued that the complainant was not available at the time of occurrence and he even failed to give the source of information in the FIR. He further submitted that two police personnel whose presence in the close proximity was alleged in the FIR have only stated in their statements that the spouse of the complainant came and made a complaint against the female accused/respondents and nothing else. He further contended that although the complainant has produced two persons belonging to village Kachura and Skardu as eye-witnesses of the occurrence but despite the fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 12 hours, the presence of the eye-witnesses not reflected in the FIR which makes the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses highly improbable. He further argued that the accused/respondents are charged with offences 452/354/506(1)/337-A/109/34 P.P.C but offences under Section 354/506(1)/337-A/109/34 P.P.C are bailable in nature and wherein bail to an accused/respondent is a matter of right not a grace. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the instant petition being devoid of merits. 6.(sic) Learned DPG mainly relied on the arguments of the counsel for the complainant/petitioner and submitted that injury report and ultrasound report clearly reflects that wife of petitioner/ complainant has sustained severe injuries as a result of being badly beaten in presence of impartial witnesses which connects the accused /respondents with the alleged guilt. He submitted that the respondents/accused are involved in a heinous crime an unlawfully assaulted the victim. He further argued that the accused/respondents have criminally trespassed the house of complainant/petitioner.

7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR as well as record of the case.

8. Admittedly all the offences reflected in the FIR except 452 P.P.C are bailable. It is also brought into the notice of the court by the Learned DPG appearing on behalf of the state that the investigation of case is completed and the Challan of the case is put in Court and trial of the case is in progress and the case is fixed for the framing of charge of accused. When the learned DPG was inquired whether any of the above named accused was required for purpose of recovery of any kind, he replied that, no recovery of any kind is required from the above named accused/respondents, because the investigation to the extent of all the accused is completed and the challan of the case is already submitted in trial Court for on ward proceeding.

9. The superior Courts of the Country as well as this Court in the plethora of judgments have already settled that "Bail once granted by the Competent Cours having Jurisdiction, cannot be cancelled unless there are compelling circumstances or the bail granting order is void, illegal, or fanciful. According to the Judgments of the High Court as well the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan considerations for cancellation of bail are totally different from considerations for grant of bail. Section 497 (5) Cr.P.C. emphasizes on three grounds for the cancellation of bail namely:- a) If accused misuses the liberty of bail. b) If accused has committed the same offence while remaining on bail; c) If accused tried to tamper with the evidence brought on record during investigation.

10. The petitioner failed to establish any such ground during arguments. Furthermore, investigation in the case is completed to the extent of accused/ respondents. If at all, if the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is admitted in toto that, the learned Trial Court has based his judgment on merit while the Pre-arrest is bail is an extra ordinary relief and for the sake of arguments if the petition in hand is dismissed on this technical ground, the respondents would be entitled to post arrest bail on the basis of merit, soon after the pronouncement of the order by this Court; because there is contradiction in the contents of FIR and the statements of eye-witness recorded during investigation under section 161 Cr.P.C. which makes the case of prosecution as one of the further inquiry. Basic Law is bail and not jail, hence by sending the respondents/ accused behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose that too when the investigation in the case is completed and nothing has to be recovered from the accused/petitioners even after their arrest, hence the arrest of accused may be presumed not fruitful for further investigation. All the offences mentioned in the FIR are either bailable or not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The impugned judgments/orders passed by the learned Vacations Session Judge/Duty Judge Kharmang are well reasoned and based on application of judicious mind, which called for no interference of this Court.

11. In the light of what has been discussed above, the instant Cr.Misc No. 26/2025 filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. File. JK/39/GB Petition dismissed.