2012 PLP 301 (MLD)

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.

Petitioner Inamullah has challenged the order dated 29-11-2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Bannu, whereby he allowed bail to the respondent in a case registered against him and another under Sections 302/324/34, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No.160, dated 10-8-2008 in the Police Station Basia Khel, Bannu.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that where the respondent along with co-accused is directly charged for the commission of offence, he being prima facie linked with the offence attracting prohibitory clause did not deserve the concession of bail and that the order granting bail being whimsical, perverse, capricious and arbitrary merits recall. The learned counsel next contended that though the sickness of the respondent was also considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as a ground for granting bail but there was absolutely nothing on the record to support and substitute this ground. Though the Boards, the learned counsel added, twice opined that the respondent needed further evaluation (Coronary angiography) and treatment at a Teaching Hospital but that would not constitute a ground calling for the grant of bail.

3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondent contended that the grounds for grant of bail are totally different from those of its cancellation and that in the absence of any allegation as to the misuse of the concession of bail, it cannot be recalled. The learned counsel next contended that when the Board opined twice that the respondent needs evaluation and treatment in the teaching Hospital, such opinion cannot be looked askance at.

4. The learned State counsel supported the bail cancellation application by submitting that the respondent is directly charged by the complainant and the injured P.W., therefore, he being prima facie linked with a crime attracting prohibitory clause did not deserve the concession of bail.

5. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. A look at the F.I.R. reveals that the respondent is directly charged for having effectively fired at the deceased and the injured. The learned trial court while deciding the bail petition of the accused/ respondent not only embarked upon deeper appreciation of evidence but also referred to certain statements which under no stretch of imagination benefit the respondent. The data thus far collected clearly and squarely connects the accused/respondent with the crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have laboured hard to make out a case for the grant of bail even on medical ground notwithstanding there was absolutely nothing on the record in this behalf. The board did opine, once in 2009 and then in 2011, that the respondent needs evaluation and treatment in the Teaching Hospital, but that treatment might have been done by now and if that has not been done till now, it could not be made a pretext to keep him at large for good. In short this is not a case for grant of bail from whatever angle it is looked at. The order granting bail being whimsical, arbitrary, capricious and even perverse, on the face of it, merits recall. I thus allow this petition and recall the bail granting order. The accused/respondent who is present in the court be taken into custody and sent to the jail as under trial prisoner. Copy of this order be placed on the personal file of the learned Judicial Officer. H.B.T./298/P Bail cancelled.