Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1445 of 1982, decided on 7th December, 1982.
---S. 497(5)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34/120-B--Bail, cancellation of-- Concession of bail, allegedly misused--Three reports having been entered at instance of witnesses that accused had threatened them with dire consequences--Mere reports in Roznamcha on complaint for maintenance of peace at instance of one party, held, would not supply reasonable and sufficient ground for cancelling and interfering with bail granted by superior Courts--It would be hazardous to rely on such reports without actual proof of those facts in Court--Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed in circumstances.
Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for Petitioner.
Akhtar Masood for the State.
Sahibzada Farooq Ali for respondents.
This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to Nek Muhammad, Sadar Din and Hanif by the learned Sessions Judge and by this Court in a case under section 302/34/120-B, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Khangarh, vide F.I.R. No. 15, dated 3-2-1982.
2. The learned counsel submits that since respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have misused the concession of bail by tampering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses, the bail allowed to them is liable to be recalled. To substantiate the allegation he has relied upon three Rupats, entered in the daily diary wherein it has been stated that the respondents had threatened the complainant and witnesses. The learned counsel for the State has also supported this application.
Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, vehemently opposed the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that these Rupats are not sufficient for the cancellation of bail.
3. After hearing the learned counsel I find that to substantiate the allegations that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have misused the concessions of bail, the complainant/ petitioner has placed on record 3 Rupats got entered by him and witnesses to the effect that the respondents had threatened them with dire consequences and as such had misused the concession of bail.
To my mind these Rupats cannot be treated as sufficient proof of the allegation of tampering with the evidence by the respondents. There can be no denial of the fact that if a person abuses the concession of bail by tampering or even attempting to tamper with the prosecution evidence the concession so extended is to be withdrawn and such a person is to be remanded to custody, but at the same time it is well-settled that mere entry in the Roznamcha or filing a report by a Police Officer for maintenance of peace at the instance of one party or even a witness, would not serve the purpose of supplying a reasonable and sufficient ground for cancelling and interfering with the bail granted by a Court of law. If such entries and/or reports be accepted as grounds for cancelling the bail by themselves, this would tantamount to giving a handle to the parties or to the police to undo what a superior Courts of law may have done in the matter of bail. It is therefore, hazardous to rely on such reports without actual proof of those facts in Court. In the instant case, I find that no actual proof of the allegation has been adduced in the Court in any shape.
4. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for the cancellation of bail. Disposed of.
S. A. /5365/L Bail dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer