1968 P Cr (PLP)

Chiragh Dirt v. State P L, U 1967 SC 340 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S: 497‑‑Bail Accused facing trial on charges under S. 302/34, P. P. C. read with Ss. !07 & 109‑Cancellation of bail sought on ground that accused was suborning prosecution witnesses‑Sessions Judge while canceling bail not adverting to such allegation but expressing opinion that in circumstances of case "lalkara" amounted to abetment‑ View of Sessions Judge, held, premature‑Not to prejudice issue of guilt of accused‑No sufficient ground held was available to Sessions Judge for cancellation ref bail‑Order set aside rued accused allowed to remain ore bail. Sh. Ataullah for Petitioner. Farrukh Amin for the Complainant. Mufti Nazar Muhammad for the State. The petitioner Ghulam Rasul is facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, on a charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. along with one Mukhtar Ahmad. The prosecution case against the Petitioner apparently is that he had shouted a lalkra by which his co‑accused Mukhtar Ahmad was incited to stab the deceased Muhammad Akbar. The petitioner moved a bail application before the learned Session Judge (Mr. Munir Ahmad Farooqi) who allowed it on the 29th of May 1967. The complainant Muhammad latif made an application to this Court for cancellation of the bail granted by Mr. Munir Ahmad Farooqi which came up before my learned brother Mr. Justice Shamim Hussain Kadri, who rejected it on the main around that as the cancellation was sought on the allegation that the petitioner (Ghulam Rasul) was suborning the prosecution witnesses which needs inquiry the application in the first instance should have been moved before the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail. It seems that taking cue from this order the applicant then moved the learned Sessions Judge (Mr. Gulbaz Khan) who had in the meanwhile succeeded Mr. Munir Ahmad. The main ground for cancellation of the bail urged before Mr. Gulbaz Khan was the same as stated in the application before this Court that the petitioner after his release on bail was trying to win over the prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge (Mr. Gulbaz Khan) has in a lengthy order dated the 14th of December 1967 referred to the various steps taken in this case for the release of the petitioner on bail and the cancellation of that bail and in deciding this application has considered that the lalkara attributed to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that the petitioner bore a grudge against the deceased, constituted abetment. He has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chiragh Din v. State (P L D 1967 S G 340). Whether or not a lalkara would constitute abetment is a question, which arises for decision on its own facts in each case and on the appreciation of the entire evidence that is led therein. This case at the present stage is under trial having been recently committed to the learned Sessions Judge. The view expressed by him that "in the circumstances of the present case the lalkara amounts to abetment is rather premature which should not at all prejudice the issue of the guilt of the petitioner." The main point on which the cancellation of the petitioner's bail was sought that he was striving to suborn the prosecution witnesses. This allegation has not even been adverted to by the learned Sessions Judge. I feel that no sufficient ground was available for the learned Sessions Judge to cancel the bail allowed to the petitioner by his predecessor‑in‑office.

2. I, therefore, set aside this order and allow the petitioner to remain on bail. He will furnish security in the amount of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.D.M., Lyallpur. Petition accepted.