THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Misc. Application No.328 of 2020
For hearing of main case:
Applicant : Muhammad Yousuf Kadani son of Muhammad Hashim,
Through Mr. Irfan Yaqoob Arfani, Advocate
Respondent No. 1 : The State through Mr. Talib Ali Memon,
Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh.
Respondents No. 2-5 : (2) Allah Bachayo son of Mehmood Ali, (3) Ali son of Allah Bachayo, (4) Adil son of Allah Bachayo and (5) Shehzad alias Babban son of Tanveer (None present)
Date of hearing : 12.10.2020
Date of Order : 12.10.2020
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. – Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant/ complainant has assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 06.8.2020 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi in Criminal Bail Application No.2317/2020 filed by private respondents, whereby the Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court after hearing the parties confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail in favour of the private respondents, however, surety amount was enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- each and P.R. bond in the like amount with direction to furnish the surety within 10 days before the Nazir of trial Court.
2. It is noted that the applicant/ complainant lodged FIR against the private respondents on 29.7.2020 alleging therein that on 23.7.2020, when he was present along with his children at his house, at about 2225 hours, his outer door was knocked, which was opened by his son Sajid, the accused persons namely Allah Bachayo, Ali, Adil, Shahzad @ Babban along with 6/7 persons duly armed with Lathies forcibly entered into his house, beaten his son mercilessly and so also extended threats to him for dire consequences. Such matter was reported at police station, obtained referring letter for medical treatment, thereafter victim was examined by the Medico-Legal Officer and after receiving such certificate, present FIR was lodged.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. On a close scrutiny of the material placed on file, I am of the opinion that prima facie reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that respondents No.2 to 5 have committed the offence. The reasons for granted bail to them are quite sufficient/ convincing and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi has recorded a speaking order. In the circumstances, I do not see any justification as to why the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge judiciously be interfered with by this Court.
5. Even otherwise, strong and exceptional grounds are required for the cancellation of bail granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. are not at all punitive. Resultantly, there is no legal compulsion even for the cancellation of the bail granted in cases which are punishable with death/life imprisonment/ imprisonment for ten years.
6. Additionally, the accused is not to be deprived of the benefit of bail whenever reasonable doubt arises about his/ their participation in the crime or about the truth/ probability of the prosecution case. In such a situation, it would be better to keep him on bail than in the jail during the period of the trial and the personal liberty granted to him by a Court of competent jurisdiction, through grant of bail, should not be snatched away from him/ them unless it becomes absolutely necessary to do so under the law. In this respect, I am supported by the case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State reported in PLD 1996 SC 241.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that this application for the cancellation of bail is without any substance. The same is accordingly dismissed along with listed applications.
It is pertinent to mention here that if during proceedings before trial Court if the accused persons misuse the bail, then trial Court is competent to take action against the accused persons as per law. Office is directed to immediately send the copy of this order to the trial Court.