| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4874 = 2026 SLD 4874 = 2026 MLD 1030 |
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 446 of 2025, decided on 31st October, 2025.
Presented By: Ali Baig, C.J
DAG Malik Sherbaz for the State. Ashfaq Ahmed and Muzaffar-ud-Din for the Complainant. Imtiaz Hussain and Shujjat Ali for
Respondents.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 446 of 2025, decided on 31st October, 2025.
Presented By: Ali Baig, C.J
DAG Malik Sherbaz for the State. Ashfaq Ahmed and Muzaffar-ud-Din for the Complainant. Imtiaz Hussain and Shujjat Ali for
Respondents.
The STATE through Additional Advocate General G.B. and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
AZMINA and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(5)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 322, 500, 506, 34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 322, 500, 506 & 34---Qatl-bis-sabab, defamation, criminal intimidation, common intention---Application for cancellation of bail, dismissal of---Female accused---Petitioner/complainant was aggrieved of grant of post-arrest bail to respondent/accused by Trial Court---Allegations against the respondents/accused were that they and their co-accused had abused and used filthy language and threatened complainant to kill him---Admittedly, offence under S.322, P.P.C, though was non-bailable but was not punishable with any period of imprisonment except the payment of Diyat---Where criminal liability of an accused of an offence is diyat only, the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Offence under Ss.500 & 506, P.P.C were admittedly bailable---Moreover, both the respondents/accused are women and without there being strong evidence against them, it would not be in the interest of justice to give them to police custody---Moreover, co-accused of the present respondents/accused had been released on bail by the Trial Court, hence rule of consistency applied to the case of the present petitioners/accused---Accused/respondents had remained in police custody for about six days and investigation had been completed by the police---Both the accused/respondents being women, their case fell within the ambit of proviso of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Complainant and prosecutor had failed to agitate grounds for cancellation of bail---Furthermore, once bail was granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds were required to cancel the concession of bail---Petition for cancellation of bail being devoid of merit was dismissed. 2004 PCr.LJ 968; 2009 YLR 1818; 2025 PCr.LJ 1341; 2023 PCr.LJ Note 20; 2005 YLR 1968 and 2022 SCMR 515 ref. Date of hearing: 31st October, 2025. …