2003 PLP 1596 (YLR)

Muhammad Aslam Khan Dhukkur for Respondents Nos.2 to

5. M.A. Hameed for the State Through this petition, the petitioner has sought cancellation of post‑arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.2 to 5 in case F.I.R. No.212 registered at Police Station Saddar Sadiqabad, on 3‑7‑1999, for offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C., by Mr. Muhammad Islam, Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiqabad, vide order dated 22‑9‑2001.

2. According to F.I.R., the respondents criminally assaulted upon the complainant, tore her cloths and after denuding her left the scene of occurrence alongwith Chadar of the complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the bail has been granted to the respondents due to mala fide reasons, as prior to passage of bail granting order, the petitioner had moved an application (Criminal Miscellaneous No.58‑T of 2001) seeking withdrawal of the bail application as well as the main case from the aforementioned Court, before this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 19‑9‑2001 directed the trial Court not to pass final judgment. They have further contended that despite that fact, which was in the knowledge of the trial Court, respondents were admitted to bail vide impugned order.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has justified the order of grant of bail in the circumstances of the case and has submitted that the order dated 19‑9‑2001 passed by this Court related to the passing of the final judgment and it did not relate to the interim orders, bail granting order or recording of evidence.

5. The learned counsel for the State has adopted the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I feel that the learned trial Court should not have passed any order after passage of order dated 19‑9‑2001 by this Court but the matter relates to the liberty of the respondents and it is to be seen whether in the circumstances of the case bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled or not. In this regard I have noticed that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than one year, one month and eighteen days. The respondents had got a case registered through F.I.R. No.202 of 1998 for offences under sections 302/109/148 and 149, P.P.C. prior to the instant case, wherein Irshad complainant's son (in the present case) was mentioned as accused and in the background of enmity and ill‑will the delay in reporting the matter to the police attains significance. There is no allegation that after their release on bail, the respondents had been misusing the concession. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to cancel the bail of the respondents, therefore, I dismiss this petition. N.H.Q./S‑605/L Petition dismissed.