| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2328 2026 SLD 2328 = 2026 MLD 481 |
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 386 of 2025, decided on 17th September, 2025.
Presented By: Johar Ali, J
Farhan Ali for Petitioner/Complainant. Wahid Ali for
Respondent. Malik Sher Baz, Additional Advocate General for the Proforma-respondent/State.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 386 of 2025, decided on 17th September, 2025.
Presented By: Johar Ali, J
Farhan Ali for Petitioner/Complainant. Wahid Ali for
Respondent. Malik Sher Baz, Additional Advocate General for the Proforma-respondent/State.
SHOAIB HASSAN---Petitioner
VERSUS
SAFDAR KHAN and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(5)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 489-F
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Application for cancellation of bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-respondent was that he issued cheque in consideration of purchasing of a vehicle from the petitioner/complainant and when the cheque was presented before the bank concerned, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, hence the FIR was lodged---Accused-respondent was arrested in the said FIR---Accused-respondent filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate but was rejected---Being aggrieved, the accused-respondent filed bail application before the Sessions Court, which was allowed---Validity---From perusal of the record, it was evident that the respondent/accused was granted bail by the Sessions Judge---Grounds urged by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of bail revolved around deeper appreciation of evidence which was not permissible at bail stage and the grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds for granting bail were totally different---For cancellation of bail under S.497(5), Cr.P.C., it was mandatory that there should be repetition of offence; chance of absconsion; tempering of prosecution evidence; interference in the investigation; creation of hurdles in investigation, or a try to delay the trial; judgment/order passed by the lower Court being without jurisdiction or illegal exercis of jurisdiction, but no such like situation existed in the present case---Court had exercised its discretion in granting bail and the same did not appear to be perverse, illegal or arbitrary---Moreover, once a bail was granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, then it could only be recalled on exceptional grounds, such exceptional grounds were not existing in the instant case---Furthermore, no grounds for cancellation of bail had been substantiated by the petitioner/complainant in the instant application---Application filed under S.497(5), Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Date of hearing: 17th September, 2025. …