ALI BAIG, C.J. The petitioner/complainant namely Abid Ullah has filed the instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused by the learned 3essions Judge, Gilgit, vide order dated 31.08.2024 passed in BBA No 228/2024.
2. Succinctly the allegations against the respondent/accused as reflected in the FIR are that on 24.04.2024, the present respondents/accused have forcibly snatched the vehicle of the complainant bearing No. AK-4544, Chassis No. NZE-121-3187369, Model 2003 in Gilgit.
3. On written application of the complainant, the local police of PS Basin have chalked FM No.77/2024 under section 395, P.P.C. The present. respondents/accused had filed an application under section 498 Cr.P.C for grant of pre-arrest mil before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit vide order dated 31.08.2024 has confirmed ad-interim pre- arrest bail.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 31.08.2014 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit, the complainant/petitioner has filed the instant petition for cancellation of bail before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argued that The respondents/accused are directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant further argued that the section 395 P.P.C. reflected in the FIR fully attracts to the case of respondents/accused, as such the bail granted to the respondents/accused is liable to be re-called. The learned, counsel for the petitioner/complainant further argued that the motive behind the occurrence has been disclosed in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant further argued that the respondents/accused have threatened the petitioner/complainant for dire consequences and they have forcibly snatched the vehicle of the complainant whereas the complainant has no nexus with the accused party. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant further argued that the occurrence has been witnessed by impartial PWs and the PWs in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C have fully implicated the respondents/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complaint further argued that the vehicle of the complainant is still in illegal possession of the respondents/accused and the local police have not recovered the said vehicle due to pre-arrest bail of the accused/respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant further argued that the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit has confirmed the bail of the respondents/accused in a hurry and hasty manner without considering the record of the case, hence the pre-arrest bail facility extended to the respondents/accused is liable to be re-called in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has relied upon judgment of this Court dated 24.05.2019 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 102/2019 titled "Islam Ullah and others v. The State".
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused strongly opposed this bail cancellation petition by contending that the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit has rightly confirmed ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the respondents on merit. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused further contended that the respondents/accused have never misused the bail facility. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused further contended that the petitioner has failed to agitate any ground required for cancellation of per-arrest bail. The grounds taken by the petitioner/complainant do not meet the requirements of bail cancellation, hence, the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record of the case with their able assistance.
8. Perusal of contents of FIR shows that the occurrence was taken place on 24.04.2024 and FIR has been lodged on 01.08.2024 after delay of about four months of the occurrence and the complainant has failed to explain the delay in lodging of FIR. Moreover, there is a transaction of car between the petitioner/complainant namely Abid Ullah and the respondents/accused as evident from sale deed dated 24.04.2024 whereby the complainant has sold out Toyota Corolla NCP bearing Chassis No. NZE-121-3187369, Model 2003 which has been allegedly forcibly snatched by the respondent/accused namely Sher Alam from the complainant. Hence controversy between the parties seems to be a case of civil nature and requires further inquiry into the guilt of the respondents/accused under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
9. It is also evident from perusal of record that the respondent No.2 namely Sher Alam has also lodged FIR against one Yousuf Khan who is brother of complainant under section 489-F, P.P.C., vide FIR No. 232/23 at Police Station Jutial Gilgit which creates serious doubt regarding involvement of the respondents/accused in this case. Moreover, when the Court of competent jurisdiction has granted bail to the accused, then strong grounds are required for it's cancellation. For cancellation of bail, the Court has to see whether the accused after release on bail is creating hindrance for complainant party, tampering with the prosecution witnesses or misusing concession of bail.
Perusal of record depicts that all these ingredients required for cancellation of bail are lacking in the instant case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. File