2018 P Cr (PLP)
AHMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (AHMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Awan for Petitioner.
- Farooq Akhtar for Respondents Nos.1 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Principle
Bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. was a rule and refusal thereof was an exception. [Para. 7 of the judgment]
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 411, 427, 447 & 506
Theft, dishonestly receiving stolen property, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation
Cancellation of bail, refusal of
Accused moved bail application after his arrest, which was allowed by the Trial Court
Complainant had alleged that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed a non-bailable offence, therefore, they did not deserve the concession of bail
Bail granting order passed by the Trial Court was patently illegal
Appellate court, without considering the implicating material dismissed the application for cancellation of bail
In the present case, neither the plea of misuse of the concession of bail was taken nor urged before the court
Nothing was available on record to show that the impugned orders were perverse or illegal or without jurisdiction
If bail was granted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of valid reasons, the same could not be recalled/cancelled until exceptional grounds were established by the complainant/prosecution
Circumstances established that petitioner had failed to point out that the bail granting order was either perverse or disregard of settled principles for granting bail or that the discretion exercised in favour of the accused was injudicious
Petition for cancellation of bail being bereft of merit was dismissed. [Paras. 8 & 9 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.
Through the instant petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks cancellation of post arrest bail of the respondents Nos.1 to 6 in case FIR No.279 dated 09.6.2017 registered under sections 411/379/427/447/506, P.P.C. at Police Station Paroa, District D.I. Khan.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/respondents have specifically been charged in the FIR for commission of offence; that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have committed a non bailable offence, therefore, they do not deserve the concession of bail; that the bail granting order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is patently illegal; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the implicating material dismissed the application for cancellation of bail, illegally, therefore, warrants interference.
3. As against that, the learned counsel representing the respondents Nos.1 to 6 argued that the offence with which the accused/respondents are charged is not covered by the restrictive clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that there is nothing on the record to show that the bail granting order is perverse and patently illegal; that there is no allegation of misuse of concession of bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Learned Assistant A.-G. representing the State supported the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reflects that the alleged offence was committed on 28.5.2017, and report was lodged by the complainant on 29.5.2017. There is inordinate delay in lodging the report. The offence with which the respondents are charged is not hit by the restrictive clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. It is now settled that bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception. In this respect reliance may be placed on the cases of "Mst. Shezan Sanaullah v. State" (2006 PCr.LJ 522) and "Muhammad Akram v. State" (2009 PCr.LJ 497).
8. Moreover, neither the plea of misuse of the concession of bail was taken nor urged before the Court. There is nothing on the record to show that the impugned orders are perverse or illegal or without jurisdiction. It is settled law that when bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of valid reasons, the same cannot be recalled/cancelled until exceptional grounds are established by the complainant/prosecution. In this respect reliance is placed on "Mst. Riffat Munir v. Naveed Zafar and another" (2016 PCr.LJ 464). Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the bail granting order was either perverse or disregard of settled principles for granting the bail or that the discretion exercised in favour of the respondents is injudicious.
9. For what has been stated above, the petition in hand being bereft of merit is dismissed. JK/152/P Petition dismissed.