MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J. Accused/respondent was. admitted to post arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Haripur vide order dated 23.06.2023 and feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid bail granting order, the petitioner/complainant has approached to this Court for the cancellation of his bail.
2. As per contents of the FIR the complainant namely Makhdoom Haider Shah has charged the present accused along with other co-accused for committing murder of his father namely Abbas Ali Shah, uncle namely Abid Hussain Shah, brother namely Zulqurnain Haider Shah and cousin namely Ishfaq Hussain Shah. Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be dispute over land.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties and learned A.A.G. for the State were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.
4. The record would show that in this case there are eleven (11) accused and majority of them are on bail and they have been granted bail either by the trial Court or by this Court and in one case, the complainant has also approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court where it was observed that the grounds prevailed for the grant of bail before this Court may not be considered in the bail granting order of other accused and, thereafter, the learned trial Court has granted bail on the ground of consistency to the present petitioner, therefore, on this ground notice was issued to the respondents/accused.
5. Today at the very outset, learned counsel for both the parties stated that the trial in this case has already been commenced, however, the learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the trial was even in progress at the time of granting bail to the other co-accused, therefore, only commencement of trial may not be considered as a ground for dismissal of this bail cancellation application, however, such submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are not in line with the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in many cases as in a case[1] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the trial is about to commence bail cancellation petition should not be encouraged so as to avoid any discussion or remarks on merits of the case. Similarly, in the case[2] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court should not grant or cancel bail when the trial is in progress.
6. Even otherwise, it is an established law that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required to recall and cancel the same. In the case[3] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that superior Courts of the country from time to time have enunciated certain principles governing cancellation of bail and those are in field with unanimous concurrence since considerable time. Those are enumerated as under:- i) If the bail granting order in patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. ii) That the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner. iii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses. iv) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court. v) That the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation. vi) That accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence. vii) That some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt of the accused.
The aforesaid view has again recently a firmed by the apex Court in a case[4], para 9 of this judgment being relevant is reproduced below.
"The scope of interference to be made against the grant of bail by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction is well settled and hardly needs reiteration. Cancellation of orders granting bail are ordinarily resorted by the Court on two grounds: (1) when the impugned order is perverse on the face of it or (ii) when the impugned order has been made in clear disregard of some principle of the law of bail. A perverse order is one that has been passed against the weight of the material on the record or by ignoring such material or without applying the relevant legal criteria or without giving reasons. Such an order is also termed as arbitrary, whimsical and capricious.
None of these grounds for cancellation of bail are attracted in the present case. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of the High Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is declined in Criminal Petition No.1197-L of 2021, and it is dismissed".
7. This being the legal position, the petition in hand is found meritless and the same is accordingly dismissed.
1. Muhammad Akram v. Zahid Iqbal and others (2008 SCMR 1715)
2. Rehmat Ullah v. The State and another (2011 SCMR 1332)
3. Sami Ullah and another v. Laiq Zada and another (2020 SCMR 1115)
4. Ahmed Shakeel Bhatti and others v. The State (2023 SCMR 1) revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.