2022 PLP 105 (YLRN)
KHEENRO — Applicant Versus FATTU and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 105 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHEENRO — Applicant Versus FATTU and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 105 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 105 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 105 (YLRN) (KHEENRO — Applicant Versus FATTU and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 504
Munaqqilah
Hurt and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
Delayed FIR
Scope
Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused persons
Trial Court while considering the case had rightly granted bail to the accused persons and particularly in view of the inordinate delay of 23 days in lodgment of FIR
Possibility of false implication of respondents could not be ruled out, in circumstances
Once bail was granted to the accused by a court of competent jurisdiction the cancellation whereof was seldom and bail could only be cancelled when bail granting order was fanciful, factually incorrect and arbitrary
No question of arbitrariness in impugned order attracting interference under the provisions of S. 497(5), Cr.P.C. existed
Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
Through this criminal miscellaneous application filed under the provisions of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. applicant Kheenro, who is complainant in the subject case, emanating from FIR. No.01 of 2020 for offences under sections 337-F(vi), 33-L(2) and 504, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Nangarparkar, seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondents Fattu, Kewal and Partab, who have been granted bail mainly on the grounds that the FIR was delayed by 23 days without proper explanation thereof; the parties are already on dispute over the landed property; there are general allegations against all the accused and, that the offence with which the respondents/accused are charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned A.P.G waiving notice of this case, has supported the impugned order stating that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby bail has been granted to the respondents/accused by the learned trial Court. Patently, the learned trial Court, considering the aforesaid aspects of the case has rightly granted bail to the respondents and particularly in view of the inordinate delay of 23 days in lodgment of FIR, possibility of false implication of the respondents cannot be ruled out. It is well-settled law that once bail is granted to the accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction the cancellation whereof is seldom and bail can only be cancelled when bail grant order is fanciful, factually incorrect and arbitrary. There is no question of arbitrariness in impugned bail grant order attracting interference under the provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C., therefore, this application having no substance is dismissed along with the other listed application. SA/K-34/Sindh Applicant dismissed.