Parameters prescribed for cancellation of bail

PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 58

Present: Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J.

Mst. SHAZIA BIBI--Petitioner

versus

STATE and 2 others--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 12381/CB of 2010, decided on 23.11.2010.

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

----S. 497(5)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 452, 354, 148 & 149--Cancellation of bail--Respondents joined the investigation--According to the inquiry conducted by the SDPO, no occurrence had taken place--Allegation of complainant was further not established that she was dragged by respondent in her house who also torn her clothes because she did not get herself medically examined in a hospital and did not produce M.L.C. in support of her version nor produced her torn clothes--Respondents were not required by the police for further investigation--Parameters prescribed for cancellation of bail were different from bail before arrest or bail after arrest--There was no allegation against the respondents that they have misused the concession of bail before arrest--Case of respondents was of further inquiry--Additional Sessions Judge had rightly confirmed the bail before arrest of respondents--No interference was called for--Petition was accordingly dismissed.           [P. 59] A

Syed Tayyab Mahmood Jafri, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Noor Ahmad Bhatti, District Public Prosecutor for State.

Raja Rustam Zaheer and Ch. M. Yaseen Zahid, Advocates for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23.11.2010.

Order

The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of Respondents No. 2 and 3 in case FIR No. 348/2010 dated 5.8.2010 registered under Sections 452, 354, 148 & 149 PPC at Police Station City Pattoki District Kasur.

2.  Precise allegation against the Respondents No. 2 and 3 is that on 14.7.2010 at about 12.00 noon, the complainant was alone in her house when the accused persons armed with .30-bore pistol entered into her house along with three unknown persons, abused her, dragged her and torn her clothes. On her hue and cry, the prosecution witnesses arrived and the accused persons fled away.

3.  After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 12.10.2010 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki confirmed the bail before arrest of Respondents No. 2 and 3.

4.  Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that Respondents No. 2 and 3 are nominated in the FIR with a specific role. During investigation, they were found guilty, the case was registered on the application of the complainant which she filed under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki. In addition to other evidence, 7 persons submitted their affidavits in favour of contentions of complainant. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which shall not be granted to Respondents No. 2 and 3. The impugned order is result of non-application of conscience judicial mind, therefore, bail granting order dated 12.10.2010 be recalled.

5.  Learned District Public Prosecutor has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.  Conversely learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed this petition and has contended that Section 354 PPC is bailable offence while Section 452 PPC is not made out as before lodging of the FIR, both the parties submitted applications under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. before the learned Justice of Peace for registration of the case. During the proceedings, with the consent of the parties, matter was referred to D.P.O. Kasur for investigation who further entrusted the same to SDPO, Pattoki for an inquiry and according to the report of Inquiry Officer (SDPO) no occurrence had taken place in the house of the complainant. The petitioner has levelled allegation against Respondents No. 2 and 3 that they have entered into her house and dragged her and torn her clothes but neither she was medically examined nor she produced M.L.R. in support of her contentions. In the circumstances, the case of Respondents No. 2 and 3 is of further inquiry and learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed the bail before arrest of Respondents No. 2 and 3.

7.  Arguments heard. Record perused.

8.  According to the police file, Respondents No. 2 and 3 joined the investigation. According to the findings of inquiry conducted by the SDPO, Pattoki, no occurrence had taken place. The allegation of complainant is further not established that she was dragged by Respondent No. 2 in her house who also torn her clothes because she did not get herself medically examined in a hospital and did not produce M.L.C. in support of her version nor produced her torn clothes. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are not required by the police for further investigation. The parameters prescribed for cancellation of bail are different from bail before arrest or bail after arrest. There is no allegation  against  the  Respondents No. 2 and 3 that they have misused the concession of bail before arrest. The case of respondents is of further inquiry. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed the bail before arrest of respondents. No interference is called for. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

(A.S.)   Petition dismissed.