Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 495-C/B of 1983/BWP, decided on 6th November, 1983.

-- S. 497 (5)-Bail-Cancellation-Sessions Judge ordering accused to submit fresh bail bond under bail order passed by Additional Sessions Judge which depicted cogent reasons for releasing accused on bail-Order of Sessions Judge, held, not open to any serious objection.

-- S. 497 (5) read with S. 107/151-Bail-Cancellation-Accused allegedly threatening petitioner with dire consequences but no unto ward incident taking place since his release on bail-Petition for cancellation of bail not made before Court of Sessions Judge but made directly before High Court-Petition dismissed.

Anwaar Ahmad Waraich for Petitioner.

N. A. Bhatti for Respondents.

M. Ozair Chughtai for the State.

Asghar Ali Asad, the petitioner has moved this petition for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar.

2. The facts of this case in brief are that Liaqat Ali, the brother of Asghar Ali, the complainant had been intimated by Ghulam Nabi that his daughter Mst. Akhtar was having illicit intimacy with Mehr Zaman. There was altercation between the two and on account of the said grie vance, Liaqat Ali is stated to have been murdered by the respondents. In the F. I. R. it has been stated that Ramzan son of Muhammad called Liaqat Ali from his house for some purpose and be did not retrace his steps back to the house. Liaqat Ali was searched and eventually his dead body was recovered from the cotton crop belonging to Abdur Rehman Awan. The respondents are suspected to have committed the said crime. The bail of the respondents was allowed to them by Ch. Muhammad Rafique, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar on 3rd March, 1983 by means of a detailed order. There was no eye-witness of this occurrence. The extra-judicial confession was stated to have been made to a person of humble means belonging to a different village. It was a joint confession and, therefore, the concession of bail was allowed in favour of the respondents.

3. Subsequently, the Martial Law authorities wanted to try this case. The file was sent there and the respondents were arrested. The Martial Law authorities resent this case to the Court of Sessions and did not deem it fair to try the same. Mr. Manzoor Hussain Basra, the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar ordered that the respondents should submit fresh bail bonds under the bail order, dated 3rd March, 1983 passed by Ch. Muhammad Rafique the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar and they were released on bail subject to their furnishing the said bail bond.

4. The said order has been assailed on the ground that it does not embody any reason for releasing the respondents on bail. Secondly, it has been contended that on the report of the petitioner, the respondents were bound down in security cases under sections 107 and 151, Cr. P. C., and they were still threatening the petitioner and his family of dire conse quences. Undoubtedly, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar does not contain independent reasons but he has based this order on the order passed. by Ch. Muhammad Rafique, the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge. Fresh order for bail was not made because accor ding to the learned counsel for the respondents no Military Court was constituted nor the matter was entrusted to any Military Court and the bail of the respondents was never cancelled by any forum and, therefore, no fresh order was needed. I find some substance in this argument. The impugned order is not open to any serious exception because it has been based upon the order of Ch. Muhammad Rafique, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, dated 3rd March, 1,983 which depicts cogent reasons for releasing the respondents on bail.

5. As regards the plea that the respondents are threatening the peti tioner with dire consequences, it may be noted that one Abdur Rashid is a school teacher who is teaching his pupils at a distance of 40 miles from the petitioners village and the petitioner is a student of the Law college studying at Multan. The security proceedings against the respondents were taken before the Martial Law authorities thought of taking cognizance of this case, After the release of the respondents on bail, on 6th October, 1983, no untoward incident has taken place. Lastly, it may be noted that a petition for the cancellation of bail should have been made before the Court of Sessions and not directly before the High Court. I see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.

M. Y. H. Petition 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.