Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AZIZ AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1240
[Lahore]
Before Raja Afrasiab Khan, J
AZIZAHMAD----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.106/B-C of 1994, decided on 15th February, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Cancellation of bail---Case had already been fixed for evidence---No justification was, therefore, available to cancel the bail allowed to the accused at such late stage---Trial Court, however, after recording some evidence could cancel the bail granted to accused if it came to the conclusion that there was evidence against him-- Accused's bail was not cancelled in circumstances.
Akmal Masih v. Salamat Masih 1988 S C M R 918 ref.
Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan, Advocate.
Irfan Oadir, Addl. A.-G. Imran Aziz Oureshi, Advocate.
ORDER
This application has been moved under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. by Aziz Ahmad, the petitioner, for cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No-2, Muhammad Altaf, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, on 15-12-1993. In paragraph 4 of the bail granting order, the learned Judge observed that there was an element of suspicion in the implication of the said respondent in the commission of the crime. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is evidence to show that the respondent committed the crime inasmuch as a 7 mm rifle was recovered from him and the weapon matched with the empties allegedly recovered from the spot. Learned counsel, therefore, states that this circumstance alone is enough to hold that this is not a case of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondent states that trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for recording evidence on 28-2-1994. In this situation, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in granting bail to the accused should not be interfered with. Learned counsel relies upon Akmal Masih v. Salamat Masih 1988 S C M R 918. Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Additional Advocate-General has stated that there is sufficient evidence to involve the accused-respondent with the commission of the crime. He, therefore, supports the view that the bail allowed to the accused should be cancelled in the interest of justice.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Law Officer, I hold the view that since the trial is already fixed for recording evidence on 28-2-1994, there is, therefore, no justification to cancel the bail allowed to the accused at this late stage. However, if after recording some evidence, the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is evidence against the accused, he will feel no hesitation in cancelling his bail. The learned trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial against the accused within two weeks without fail. With these remarks, there is no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
N.H.Q./A-574/L Petition dismissed.