Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2402‑B of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 325/324 & 148/149‑ Cancellation of bail‑‑Reasons advanced by Sessions Court while allowing pre‑arrest bail to accused not found to be good grounds‑‑No allegation of harassment or victimization to accused who were named in F.I.R.‑ Specific part had been ascribed to them‑‑Accused causing fourteen injuries to victim‑‑Case, prima facie found to be of concentrated attack made by all accused including absconder accused‑‑No case for bail before arrest, therefore, was made out‑‑Pre‑arrest bail granted to accused cancelled In circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 325,324 & 148/149‑ Pre‑arrest bail granted on ground that there were injuries on both sides and a cross‑case was registered‑‑As to which party was aggressor, was a matter to be determined at evidence stage‑‑Such fact, was no ground for bail before arrest‑‑Pre‑arrest bail granted to accused was, therefore, cancelled.

Sanaullah Bajwa for Petitioner.

Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Respondents.

Saeeda Butt for the State.

Muhammad Zahid, petitioner, has applied for cancellation of bail before arrest allowed to Abbas, Yaqub, Khushi, Bashir, Noor and Mushtaq in a case registered against them under sections 325/324, 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, on 28‑8‑1985. Besides the respondents, one Anwar is also accused with them who has since absconded. While allowing bail before' arrest to the respondents, the Additional Sessions Judge observed that there were injuries on both sides, a cross case has also been registered and that the accused in that case have been allowed bail. To my mind, these were no grounds for allowing bail before arrest. There were no allegations of harassment or victimization to the respondents who are named in the F.I.R. and specific part has been ascribed to them. Their absconder companion inflicted a spear blow on the left leg of the victim which caused its fracture and it was thereafter that the respondents belaboured the victim causing no less than 14 injuries to him. Prima facie, it was a concentrated attack made by all accused and in view of these allegations, to my mind, it did not make out a case for bail before arrest. As to which party was the aggressor is a matter to be determined at the evidence stage. This again would be no ground for bail before arrest. This petition is accepted and the bail allowed to the respondents is cancelled. They shall be taken into custody and detained by the local authorities.

2. This order, however, shall not stand in the way of the courts below to consider the question of bail after arrest which stands on a different footing.

H.A.K. Pre‑arrest bail cancelled.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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