| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4908 = 2026 SLD 4908 = 2026 YLR 1536 |
Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 508 of 2025, decided on 27th November, 2025.
Presented By:Ali Baig, C.J
      D.A.G. Malik Sherbaz for the State.       Ashfaq Ahmed and Muzaffar ud Din for the Complainant.       Imtiaz Hussain for
Respondent/ accused.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 508 of 2025, decided on 27th November, 2025.
Presented By:Ali Baig, C.J
      D.A.G. Malik Sherbaz for the State.       Ashfaq Ahmed and Muzaffar ud Din for the Complainant.       Imtiaz Hussain for
Respondent/ accused.
STATE through Additional Advocate General G.B and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
SHER ALAM---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section: 497(5), 498
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 322, 500, 506, 34
(a) 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 pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he and his co-accused had abused and used filthy language against the deceased and threatened to kill him---From perusal of record it transpired that there was one month and two days unexplained delay in lodging of FIR as the occurrence took place on 08-7-2025 and complainant had submitted application for lodging of FIR against the present respondent/accused and his co-accused on 10-08-2025---Complainant had remained silent for about more than one month of the occurrence---Conduct of complainant prima-facie seemed that the lodging of FIR against the present respondent and his co-accused was result of afterthought as such the case of the present respondent required further inquiry---Moreover, offence under S.322, P.P.C though was non bailable but was not punishable with any period of imprisonment except payment of Diyat and eventually if the present respondent/accused was convicted under S.322, P.P.C he would pay the Diyat amount to the legal heirs of deceased---Remaining offences under Ss.500 & 506, P.P.C as reflected in the FIR were bailable---Two co-accused of the present respondent had been released on bail by the Trial Court, hence, rule of consistency applied to the case of the respondent/ accused---Thus, petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. PLD 1983 SC 82; PLD 1994 SC 65; PLD 2009 SC 427; PLD 2020 SC 293; 2007 SCMR 482; 2023 YLR 1582; 2010 SCMR 1171; 1981 SCMR 1193 and 2024 YLR 1562 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497(5)---Bail, cancellation of---Principles---Bail could be cancelled where bail granting order was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and had resulted into miscarriage of justice; accused had misused the concession of bail in any manner; accused had tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses;…