2026 PLP 190 (YLR)

Ali Baig, C.J.

The instant petition under section 497(5) Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner/state the impugned against judgment/order dated 28-10-2024 passed by learned Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit in Bail Application No. 39/2024, whereby the learned Anti -Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit has allowed the post arrest bail in favour of the present respondent/ accused.

1. Precisely, stated the allegation against the respondent as disclosed in the FIR is that on 14-09-2024 at about 16:00 PM the complainant came to know through social media that the respondent/ accused namely Basit Ali son of Shoukat Ali has shared video from his Tik-Tok ID in which righteous Caliphs were desecrated and outraged the religious feelings of the followers of Ahle- Sunnat-Wal-Jamaat and on account of apprehension of law and order and sectarian violence the FIR was lodged against the present accused/respondent at Police Station Baseen District Gilgit.

2. After receipt of the complaint the SHO concerned registered the FIR bearing No. 93/2024 and investigation of the case was assigned to investigation Wing Gilgit and the police had arrested the present respondent/ accused and after completion of formal investigation the SHO concerned got committed the present respondent/ accused to judicial lock-up at Gilgit.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the present respondent/accused had filed a petition under section 497 Cr.P.C before the learned Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit for grant of post-arrest bail. The learned Trial Court/ Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit has allowed the post arrest bail to the respondent/accused vide order dated 28-10-2024.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/ order passed by learned trial court/ Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit, the present petitioner/state has filed the instant petition under section 497 (5) Cr.P.C before this Court seeking cancellation of bail facility extended to the respondent/ accused.

5. The learned Dy.A.G argued that the order/judgment passed by the learned trial court is against the law and the facts on the record of the case, hence, liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the accused/ respondent is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role of desecratten of righteous Caliphs. The offences mentioned in the FIR are not bailable and fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the order/judgment passed by learned trial court is result of misreading and non-reading of material available on the record of the case. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court/ Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit is illegal, perverse, fanciful, without merit and arbitrary, hence, liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that accused/ respondent is misusing the bail facility extended to him and try to tamper with the PWs. The learned DAG further submitted that CD and mobile set of accused/respondent have been recovered which are sufficient to connect the accused/respondent with the alleged crime. The learned Dy.A.G lastly submitted that the instant petition may be accepted and the accused/ respondent may be committed to judicial custody by cancelling his bail facility to meet the ends of justice.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused / respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/state and submitted that the respondent/ accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case by the police in league with the complainant with ulterior motive. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted that no any incriminating material has been recovered from the present respondent/ accused and the present respondent has already been granted post-arrest bail by learned trial Court after appreciation of material available on record. The learned counsel for the accused /respondent further submitted that the prosecution has failed to obtain forensic report of the alleged CD and mobile phone from the concerned experts, hence, the case of the respondent/accused requires further inquiry and the learned trial court has rightly granted bail to the accused/ respondent. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted that the petitioner/state has failed to establish the grounds as required under law for cancellation of bail. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted that the judgment/ order passed by learned trial court is result of correct appreciation of law and material available on file and petition in hand has been filed with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the accused / respondent further submitted the order passed by the learned trial court may be maintained by dismissing the instant petition to meet the ends of justice.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have minutely gone through the available police record with their able assistance.

8. From perusal of record it transpires that except statement of complainant no incriminating material has been collected by the police against the respondent/accused during investigation. Although the prosecution has allegedly recovered CD and Mobile phone from the respondent/accused but prosecution has failed to obtain forensic report of the recovered CD and Mobile phone. Moreover, challan of the case against the respondent /accused has yet not been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction. Thus we have come to the conclusion that the learned trial court has rightly granted bail in favour of the respondent/accused after proper evaluating the available material/ evidence.

9. It is settled principle of law that considerations for cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for grant of bail. The bail can be cancelled if the order of bail on the face of it is perverse and has been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail or it is a patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the instant case none of the grounds for cancellation of bail are attracted/available, therefore, this cancellation of bail petition is not maintainable.

10. Thus for the foregoing reasons this petition having no substance is hereby dismissed.

11. Before parting with this order we would like to add that the observations made here-in-above are tentative in nature and shall not influenced the mind of the learned Trial Judge of at the time of conducting trial of the case of the respondent. File. JK/17/GB Petition dismissed