2018 P Cr.

L J Note 198
[Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench)]
Before Shakeel Ahmad, J
AHMAD SAEED---Petitioner
Versus
ABDUL RASHID and others---Respondents
Cr. M. B.C.A. No. 13-D of 2018, decided on 22nd March, 2018.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail---Principle---Bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of S.
497, Cr.P.C. was a rule and refusal thereof was an exception. [Para. 7 of the judgment]
       Mst. Shezan Sanaullah v. State 2006 PCr.LJ 522 and Muhammad Akram v. State
2009 PCr.LJ 497 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 411, 427, 447 & 506---Theft, dishonestly
receiving stolen property, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, criminal
trespass and criminal intimidation---Cancellation of bail, refusal of---Accused moved bail
application after his arrest, which was allowed by the Trial Court---Complainant had alleged
that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed a non-bailable
offence, therefore, they did not deserve the concession of bail---Bail granting order passed by
the Trial Court was patently illegal---Appellate court, without considering the implicating
material dismissed the application for cancellation of bail---Validity---In the present case,
neither the plea of misuse of the concession of bail was taken nor urged before the court---
Nothing was available on record to show that the impugned orders were perverse or illegal or
without jurisdiction---If bail was granted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of
valid reasons, the same could not be recalled/cancelled until exceptional grounds were
established by the complainant/prosecution---Circumstances established that petitioner had
failed to point out that the bail granting order was either perverse or disregard of settled
principles for granting bail or that the discretion exercised in favour of the accused was
injudicious---Petition for cancellation of bail being bereft of merit was dismissed. [Paras. 8 &
9 of the judgment]
       Mst. Riffat Munir v. Naveed Zafar and another 2016 PCr.LJ 464 rel.
       Muhammad Anwar Awan for Petitioner.
       Adnan Ali, Assistant A.-G. for the State.
       Farooq Akhtar for Respondents Nos.1 to 6.
       Date of hearing: 22nd March, 2018.
JUDGMENT
       SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.---Through the instant petition filed under section 497(5),
Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks cancellation of post arrest bail of the respondents Nos.1 to 6 in
case FIR No.279 dated 09.6.2017 registered under sections 411/379/427/447/506, P.P.C. at
Police Station Paroa, District D.I. Khan.
2.    It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused/respondents
have specifically been charged in the FIR for commission of offence; that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have committed a non bailable offence,
therefore, they do not deserve the concession of bail; that the bail granting order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate is patently illegal; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
without considering the implicating material dismissed the application for cancellation of
bail, illegally, therefore, warrants interference.
3.    As against that, the learned counsel representing the respondents Nos.1 to 6 argued
that the offence with which the accused/respondents are charged is not covered by the
restrictive clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that there is nothing on the record to show that the
bail granting order is perverse and patently illegal; that there is no allegation of misuse of
concession of bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4.    Learned Assistant A.-G. representing the State supported the contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents.
5.    Arguments heard and record perused.
6.    Perusal of the record reflects that the alleged offence was committed on 28.5.2017,
and report was lodged by the complainant on 29.5.2017. There is inordinate delay in lodging
the report. The offence with which the respondents are charged is not hit by the restrictive
clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7.    It is now settled that bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section
497, Cr.P.C., is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception. In this respect reliance may be
placed on the cases of "Mst. Shezan Sanaullah v. State " (2006 PCr.LJ 522) and "Muhammad
Akram v. State" (2009 PCr.LJ 497).
8.    Moreover, neither the plea of misuse of the concession of bail was taken nor urged
before the Court. There is nothing on the record to show that the impugned orders are
perverse or illegal or without jurisdiction. It is settled law that when bail is granted by a
Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of valid reasons, the same cannot be
recalled/cancelled until exceptional grounds are established by the complainant/prosecution.
In this respect reliance is placed on "Mst. Riffat Munir v. Naveed Zafar and another " (2016
PCr.LJ 464).
       Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the bail granting order was
either perverse or disregard of settled principles for granting the bail or that the discretion
exercised in favour of the respondents is injudicious.
9.    For what has been stated above, the petition in hand being bereft of merit is
dismissed.
JK/152/P                                                                                             Petition dismissed.