Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2153‑B of 1979, decided on 17th February, 1980.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---

---‑‑ S. 497 (5)‑Petition for cancellation of bail turned down on ground of question of accused being guilty of offence being not free from reasonable doubt and in cases not failing within prohibition of sub section (1) of S. 497, Cr. P. C., bail cannot be refused unless accused's conduct disentitled him to exercise of discretion in his favour Discretion to grant bail or otherwise‑Not to be lightly interfered with by High Court unless shown to be exercised arbitrarily or in a fanciful manner‑Accused validly claiming benefit of being held liable vicariously for alleged grievous injuries on petitioner‑Some material witnesses also not supporting prosecution case‑Cancellation of bail declined in circumstances.

Asif Ranjha for Petitioner.

Ch. Hafeez Ahmed for Respondents.

Muhammad Hussain Naqashbandi for A.‑G. for the State.

Respondents Nos. (1 to 6) who alongwith two others have been charged for the offences of attempted murder, causing grievous hurt and rioting with deadly weapons punishable under sections 347, 325, 148/149, Pakistan Penal Code were allowed bail by learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot after they had remained in custody for five weeks in consequence of the order in Criminal Miscellaneous 1211,'‑B/78 filed by Riaz Ahmed complainant in the case by means of which tile order dated 10th April, 1979 of learned Sessions Judge granting the respondents bail before arrest was set aside. The complainant also feels aggrieved by this subsequent order of learned, Sessions Judge releasing the respondents on bail and has come up with this application under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr. P. C. for orders for cancellation of bail of the respondents.

2. Heard either side. The respondents and the remaining two accused in the case namely Akbar and Barkat Ali had allegedly waylaid the applicant and assaulted him‑ as a result of which he had sustained twenty‑four injuries. A couple of injuries (Nos. 16‑20) which were attri buted to Akbar and Barkat Ali were declared grievous. A short reference to my order dated 25th January, 1979 disposing of three applications (Cr. Misc. 1211, 1626, and 1627‑13/79) filed earlier by the appli cant should suffice to dispose of the instant application. Akbar and Barkat Ali were allowed bail by learned Sessions Judge after they had remained in custody for about three weeks. The petitions for cancellation of their bail (Crl. Misc. 1626, 1627-B/79) were turned down with the view that the question if the accused were guilty of offence under section 307, Pakistan Penal Code is not free from reasonable doubt at this stage, which doubt must be resolved in their favour for disposal of application for bail, in cases which do not fall within the prohibition of subsection (1) of section 497. Cr. P. C., bail cannot be refused which would be tantamount to punish ment in advance of the accused unless it were found that his conduct dis entitles him to the exercise of discretion of Court in his favour and the question of‑grant of or otherwise bail is in the discretion of Court which should not be interfered so lightly by the High Court unless it was shown that discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in a fanciful manner. The res pondents could validly claim more benefit of the reasons which had accounted for the order for continuance of Akbar and Barkat Ali on bail as the respondents are sought to be held liable vicariously for grievous injuries suffered by the applicant allegedly at the hands of the abovesaid two accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant does not deny that some material witnesses in the case have also not supported the prosecution. This should be a further ground to reject the application.

3. I am not impressed favourably by the argument that respondents should have been declined the confession of release on bail as they were reportedly declared proclaimed offenders in another case of bailable offence under section 336, Pakistan Penal Code. Law shall .have its course in that case if the respondents had really absconded away. Application dismissed.

Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.