Cancellation of Bail

Interference by Supreme Court — Scope — The Supreme Court normally does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below — The discretion exercised by the Courts below can be interfered with if it is found illegal, against the settled principle of law, capricious and against the record — When the lower Courts have exercised discretion in a lawful manner in favour of the accused and released the accused on bail. Supreme Court always remains slow in recalling the bail — The matter of cancellation of bail is always viewed differently as to grant of bail. Shoaib Anwar v. Malik M. Iqbal and 5 others 2013 SCR 1195 (A)
—Section 377 APC—heinous offence of moral turpitude—falls within prohibitory clause of section 497. Cr,P.C.—After examining the allegation levelled in the FIR coupled with the medico-legal report and the statement of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., involved in the heinous offence of moral turpitude and the case of the accused securely falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.,—The findings of the learned trial Court as well as the Sessions Judge Bhimber have been interfered with by the learned High Court merely on the ground that the report of the chemical examiner has not been received despite of lapse of 2 months which makes the case one of further inquiry. We are afraid that at this stage of the case the fact of non-receiving of the report of the chemical examiner cannot be made ground for releasing the accused on bail who is involved in a heinous offence of sodomy which is otherwise supported by the medico-legal report and statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., which is a relevant material to be tentatively examined at the bail stage. Sub.Maj.(r) Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Abid Shah & another 2017 SCR 1343 (B)
—section 377, APC—deeper appreciation of evidence—not warranted—Grant of bail by High Court—capricious and arbitrary—recalled in circumstances—The accused is duly nominated in promptly lodged FIR with specific allegation and no enmity comes on the record to falsely implicate him in the commission of the offence. Mere on the ground that the investigation has been completed and the accused is no more required for further investigation, bail cannot be granted in a case in which the accused is fully connected with the commission of offence on the basis of tentative assessment of the material collected by the prosecution. Deeper appreciation of the evidence is not warranted under law at bail stage as the same is the job of trial Court. The reasons assigned by the learned High Court for granting bail to the accused are not plausible in nature rather the same are capricious and arbitrary, hence cannot be approved. Sub.Maj.(r) Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Abid Shah & another 2017 SCR 1343 (D)
—section 377, APC —cancellation of bail—interference by Supreme Court—if bail granting order perverse—Supreme Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court of competent jurisdiction while dealing the bail matters—in case if it appears to be perverse and against the record, the same can be interfered with. Sub.Maj.(r) Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Abid Shah & another 2017 SCR 1343 (E)
—principle for cancellation—bail cannot be recalled once granted by Court of competent jurisdiction—unless found the bail granting order patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Muhammad Nazir Mir vs The State & another 2018 SCR 1155 (D)
— grounds for cancellation of bail—Held: It is well settled law that the grounds of cancellation of bail are totally different from those on which the bail is granted. For cancellation of the bail granted by the competent Court, it has to be seen that as to whether the accused is involved in hampering/manipulating the evidence of the prosecution or in any other manner is misusing the concession of the bail. In the case in hand, the bail has been cancelled by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli merely on the ground that the medical evidence was not available with the trial Court In our estimation, the proper course for the leaned District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli was to send the case back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the medical report while keeping intact the bail granted to the accused/petitioner, herein. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned District Court Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli is a departure from the set principle of law. Bail granting order of Tehsil Criminal Court restored. Muhammad Hussain v. The State through Advocate General & 2 others 2020 SCR 830 (A)