Application for cancellation of bail

2022 YLRN 71 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 504, 506, 427, 147, 148 & 149

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Application for cancellation of bail

Dismissal

Allegation against the accused was that he along with his co-accused murdered the brother of complainant by firing

Record transpired that the accused was not nominated in the FIR

Complainant subsequently implicated the accused in the crime through supplementary statement

Complainant had already nominated the father and brother of accused in the FIR, meaning thereby that complainant was present at the spot and knew to each other

No specific injury was attributed to the accused and only general allegation was levelled against him

Bail was granted by the court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of cogent reasons, the same could not be cancelled until and unless on exceptional grounds

Mere involvement of the accused in the alleged crime did not mean that he had committed the same

Prosecution was at liberty to bring cogent evidence to substantiate its case against the accused at the trial

No allegation that the accused had misused the concession of bail

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.

2021 MLD 1381 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss.497(5)& 103Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25Application for cancellation of bailPossession of narcoticsNon-association of private witnessesScopeProsecution sought cancellation of bail granted to accused by the Trial CourtAccused was alleged to have been found in possession of 4 kilograms of ice (drug)

Non-association of private witnesses could not be made a basis for granting post-arrest bail to an accused as S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded application of S.103, Cr.P.C., in narcotic cases

Trial Court had wrongly made deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage, which was not permissible rather tentative assessment of the material collected by the prosecution had to be made at bail stage

Order granting post-arrest bail to the accused could not sustain

Application for cancellation of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1077 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intentionAct of terrorismApplication for cancellation of bailImplication of accused through supplementary statementAbsconsion of accusedFurther inquiryScope

Complainant sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused on the ground that the accused had been an absconder and that bail had been granted in wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court

Held; nothing was available on record to show that the accused was aware about his implication

Accused was not nominated in the FIR with any role but he was subsequently implicated by the complainant in supplementary statement, with improved version of the occurrence

Confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the accused by the Trial Court in view of the scope of further inquiry could not be termed as illegal or in wrong exercise of discretion as apart from mala fide and arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment, scope of further inquiry could also be made a basis for grant/confirmation of pre-arrest bail, primarily depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case

Allegation of abusing or misusing the concession of bail by the accused was not supported by affidavit of any witness

Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

2020 PCrLJN 6 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13Qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing unlicensed weaponApplication for cancellation of bail

Contention that impugned order was premised upon a factual incorrect assumption was not besides the mark for the reason that accused was directly charged in the FIR, with specific allegation of causing fatal injuries on the person of deceased

Names of eye-witnesses were mentioned in the FIR as well as in the site plan and site inspection report, which were prepared on the very day of the occurrence

Eye-witnesses had also charged the accused for commission of offence

Statements of two witnesses were recorded on the day of occurrence

Weapon of offence AK-47 rifle had been recovered from the accused during investigation

Prima facie case existed against the accused and impugned order was completely silent about the reasons which prevailed upon the Court of Session while allowing bail to the accused

Bail could not be allowed to accused mere on the ground of further inquiry until and unless the Court came to a definite conclusion that there were no reasons to believe that the accused had committed the offence charged with

Bail was cancelled.

2019 YLRN 4 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 34Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intentionApplication for cancellation of bailFindings of Court causing prejudice to either partyEffect

Applicant/ complainant contended that Trial Court had found that offence under S.324, P.P.C. was yet to be determined and the case was covered under S.337-D, P.P.C., findings so recorded in the order caused prejudice to the case of prosecution

Respondent / accused contended that he had not misused the concession of bail in any way

Record revealed that both the parties had lodged FIRs against each other with regard to the same incident, and admittedly injuries were received by both sides thus, Trial Court had rightly found that the present case was one of further inquiry

Record also reflected that all the ingredients were lacking in favour of the applicant

No complaint existed on record that after release on bail the accused was reluctant to appear before the Trial Court

Court while dealing with the application for bail had to form its opinion tentatively on the basis of available record and ought to have used the wordings with great care and caution, keeping into consideration that such wordings or findings must not prejudice the case of either party

Findings by the Trial Court, in the present case, would prejudice the case of the prosecution as the Trial Court at pre-mature stage had formed opinion that case was covered under S.337-D, P.P.C. instead of S.324, P.P.C.

High Court expunged the findings of the Trial Court to such extent

Application for cancellation of bail was declined, in circumstances.

2019 MLD 906 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Bail granted on ground of statutory delayApplication for cancellation of bailComplainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused on the ground of statutory delayValidity

Eleven prosecution witnesses had been examined, while statement of Investigating Officer of the case was yet to be recorded

Delay in conclusion of trial had been occasioned due to submission of successive bail applications by accused and fresh investigation on his request

Bail to accused on completion of statutory period in conclusion of trial could only be granted when there was no prospect of completion of trial in near future, while in the present case trial was almost complete

Bail granted to accused was cancelled.

2019 PLD 9 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 341, 337-A, 337-F, 147, 148, 149, 109 & 427

Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, wrongful restraint, shajjah, ghayr-jaifah, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object, abetment and mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Application for cancellation of bail

Further inquiry

Completion of investigation

Scope

Complainant sought cancellation of pre-arrest/post-arrest bail granted to accused persons

Validity

No evidence of misuse of the concession of bail was available

Accused persons were nominated in the first information report (FIR) but prima facie case against accused persons required further inquiry

Challan had been submitted after completion of investigation, meaning thereby that the accused persons were not required by the police for the purpose of investigation and accused could not be handed over to the police

One of the accused persons who was granted pre-arrest bail was nominated in the FIR, but no specific role in the occurrence was attributed to him while his role was described by witnesses in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.

Bail could not be withheld as punishment

Applications for cancellation of bail were dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJN 141 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 170, 419, 420, 468 & 471

Personating a public servant, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document

Application for cancellation of bail

Scope

Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to accused by Judicial Magistrate

Allegation against accused was that he along with co-accused persons issued fake appointment orders to various individuals against various posts in police department

Validity

Earlier, bail petition of accused was dismissed up to Chief Court but later on, Judicial Magistrate granted bail to accused on the fresh ground that almost all the prosecution witnesses had filed affidavits belying/disowning their statements recorded by police under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Case against accused required further inquiry and the Judicial Magistrate had rightly granted bail to accused

No allegation of misusing the concession of bail was levelled against the accused

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras. 3, 7, 9 & 10 of the judgment]

2018 SCMR 28 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionApplication for cancellation of bail

FIR was lodged on the same day within twenty-five (25) minutes of the incident which, minimized the chances of false implication

Both the accused persons had been specifically named in the FIR and assigned specific roles

Complainant, who was the mother of the deceased, claimed to be the eye-witness of the incident, and there hardly appeared any reason to disbelieve her

Medical report fully supported the version of the complainant

Accused persons remained absconders for almost 15 months after the incident, and no plausible reason was advanced to justify their abscondence

Sufficient material was available on record which prima facie, connected the accused persons with the commission of offence

Bail granted to accused persons was recalled in circumstances.