2002 PLP 330 (MLD)

(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 497(5)‑‑‑Bail, grant of or cancellation of‑‑‑Considerations for‑‑‑Considerations for the grant of bail and the considerations for the cancellation of the, bail, were absolutely different‑‑‑Once accused had been admitted to bail, his liberty could not be interfered with lightly‑‑ Where the accused after grant of bail had not misused the concession of bail and had not interfered with the course of investigation or that while granting bail the Trial Court had not acted illegally and in violation of the settled principles for grant of bail, bail granted to the accused, could not be cancelled. Muhammad Muzaffar Khan Swati for Petitioner. Khuram Ghias Khan for the State. Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati for the Complainant Date of hearing: 12th November, 2001. The petitioners who are involved alongwith their sister Mst. Zarina in a case under sections 452/506/354‑A/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.58 dated 4‑5‑2001 registered at Police Station Ghari Habibullah, District Mansehra in consequence of the application of Muhammad Gulzar complainant, have moved instant application (Cr.M:No.239 of 2001) for grant of bail before this Court on refusal of the same by Judicial Magistrate, Balakot and Sessions Judge, Mansehra, by virtue of their orders dated 16‑6‑2001 and 1.2‑7‑2001 respectively.

2. Through Application No. (Cr. M. 280/2001) under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Muhammad Gulzar complainant has also prayed that, the order dated 12‑7‑2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Mansehra be set aside and the bail earlier granted to Mst. Zarina respondent be cancelled. This order is proposed to dispose of both the matters.

3. Precisely stated the prosecution story is that on 2‑5‑2001 at about 9‑30 a.m. Abdul Ghaffar and Nazir Hussain petitioners armed with .12 bore rifles together with Abdul Sattar petitioner and Mst. Zarina respondent forcibly entered into the house of complainant Gulzar Ahmad situated in Deh Nataryat, District Mansehra, disgraced Mst. Zarina wife of the complainant, took off her clothes and also cut her hair. On leaving the site they fired in the air. They also took away the clothes of the victim with them. Wali Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad a co villager of the complainant witnessed the occurrence. Motive leading to the ugly affair was stated to be that the petitioners and respondent were annoyed over the second marriage of Ghulam, Rasool with Mst. Zarina.

4. Mr. Muzaffar Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners and raised the point of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the presence of reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had no hand in the affair and that they had been falsely associated with the guilt. Additionally, the learned counsel urged that on the facts alleged section 354‑A, P.P.C. is not attracted and at best a case of section 354, P.P.C. is made out which is bailable. Reliance in this regard was placed on `Ghulam Haider and others v. The State NLR 1989 Cr. LJ 228 Lahore, `Manzoor Hussain and another v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2406 (Lahore) and' Amir Khan v. Mst. Gohran and another 1985 SCMR 1847 'Adverting to . the Application No.280 of 2001 for cancellation of bail granted to Mst. Zarina, the learned counsel maintained that bail granting order is based on proper exercise of discretion and hardly calls for interference of this Court and that no cogent and sound reason has been advanced for cancellation of the same.

5. Mr. Khurram Ghias, Advocate for the State, assisted by Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, on the contrary, opposed the bail application tooth and nail and has argued that in view 'of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence in possession of the prosecution consisting of the statement of Mst. Zarina victim and P. W. Wali Muhammad, for the time being the petitioners and respondent are, prima facie, connected with the offence committed and no reasonable grounds for further inquiry are available entitling for grant of bail. He added that no respectable or even a person of lowly status in our society would coin up the sort of case unless there is inverterate enmity or the girl or her family is extremely depraved. No such situation, the learned counsel added appears in the case in hand. He also contended that delay has been satisfactorily explained and it does not shatter the prosecution case in any manner. To substantiate the contentions he placed reliance on Mst. Taj. Mahi alias Tanjoo v. The State 1998 MLD 2077 Lahore, 'Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, `Imtiaz Ahmad and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC

545. Adverting to the application of the complainant regarding cancellation of bail granted to Mst. Zarina, the learned counsel contended that no good ground has been advanced for grant of bail and the mere fact Mst. Zarina is a woman lays no foundation for bail. He relief on Mst. Zaitoon v. Muhammad Riaz and 3 others PLD 1996 Peshawar 30 and ' Mst. Taj Mahi alias Tajoo v. The State 1998 MLD 2017 (Lahore).

6. It is settled, that normally High Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of bail but then interference is p inevitable, it is under duty to do so in order to secure the ends of justice and to do complete and substantial justice to the parties. In the instant case I find that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra refusing bail to the petitioners, is neither illegal nor perverse warranting interference of this Court. The bail has been declined to the petitioners for valid and cogent reasons. The tentative, assessment of the evidence in E the hand of 'prosecution consisting of the statement of Mst. Zarina (victim) and P.W. Wali Muhammad, would prima facie show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have committed the crime with which they were being charged and would not be entitled to the concession of bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. At bail stage, evidence of the parties could not be assessed/tested in depth. The purpose is to avoid expression of opinion one way or the C other on merits of the case. Without diluting upon the matter in detail I dismiss the application of the petitioners for their admission on bail and maintain the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra, holding that the petitioners have not been able to successfully demonstrate the existence of circumstances justifying the grant of bail.

7. So far as the application of the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to Mst. Zarina is concerned, it needs no reiteration that considerations for the grant of bail and the considerations for the cancellation of bail are absolutely different. Once an accused person has been admitted to bail, his liberty cannot be interfered with lightly. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince me that after grant of bail Mst. Zarina misused the concession' of bail and interfered with the course of investigation or while granting bail to respondent learned Sessions Judge acted illegally and in violation of the settled principle for grant of bail. The application fails which is hereby dismissed: H.B.T./398/P Order accordingly.