Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHEENRO VS Respondent: FATTUHonorable Justice Khadim Hussain M. ShaikhRaja Hans Raj
2022 Y L R Note 105 [Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)] Before Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J KHEENRO---Applicant Versus FATTU and 4 others---Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-62 of 2020, decided on 27th February, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 504---Munaqqilah---Hurt and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace---Bail, cancellation of---Delayed FIR---Scope---Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused persons---Trial Court while considering the case had rightly granted bail to the accused persons and particularly in view of the inordinate delay of 23 days in lodgment of FIR---Possibility of false implication of respondents could not be ruled out, in circumstances---Once bail was granted to the accused by a court of competent jurisdiction the cancellation whereof was seldom and bail could only be cancelled when bail granting order was fanciful, factually incorrect and arbitrary---No question of arbitrariness in impugned order attracting interference under the provisions of S. 497(5), Cr.P.C. existed---Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed. Raja Hans Raj for Applicant. Mrs. Sobia Bhatti, A.P.G. for the State. ORDER KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this criminal miscellaneous application filed under the provisions of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. applicant Kheenro, who is complainant in the subject case, emanating from FIR. No.01 of 2020 for offences under sections 337-F(vi), 33-L(2) and 504, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Nangarparkar, seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondents Fattu, Kewal and Partab, who have been granted bail mainly on the grounds that the FIR was delayed by 23 days without proper explanation thereof; the parties are already on dispute over the landed property; there are general allegations against all the accused and, that the offence with which the respondents/accused are charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned A.P.G waiving notice of this case, has supported the impugned order stating that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby bail has been granted to the respondents/accused by the learned trial Court. Patently, the learned trial Court, considering the aforesaid aspects of the case has rightly granted bail to the respondents and particularly in view of the inordinate delay of 23 days in lodgment of FIR, possibility of false implication of the respondents cannot be ruled out. It is well-settled law that once bail is granted to the accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction the cancellation whereof is seldom and bail can only be cancelled when bail grant order is fanciful, factually incorrect and arbitrary. There is no question of arbitrariness in impugned bail grant order attracting interference under the provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C., therefore, this application having no substance is dismissed along with the other listed application. SA/K-34/Sindh Applicant dismissed.