Hazrat Umar vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 818 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Hazrat Umar VS State S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 381 & 34---Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, theft by a servant or clerk from their master's property, common intention---Cancellation of bail---Principles---Accused-petitioner was charged that after his termination by the respondent from his office, he stole letterhead pad, stamps, original card and file of respondent's car and prepared some forged documents on his letterhead pad and transferred the ownership of car by using forged documents---Accused-petitioner was granted bail which was recalled by the Appellate Court---Validity---Perusal of the record revealed that FIR was registered under Ss. 420, 468, 471, 381, and 34, P.P.C against petitioner and co-accused---Co-accused of the petitioner was granted post arrest bail on 16.02.2024---Subsequently, the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail---On 09.10.2024, respondent No.l filed a petition under S.497(5), Cr.P.C, seeking cancellation of bail---Notably, that was the first instance where respondent No.2 introduced S.467, P.P.C in his petition---However, the case record clearly indicated that at the time of the bail granting order, the attendance of counsel for the parties, State Counsel and the Investigating Officer was duly marked before Judicial Magistrate---Despite that, neither counsel for respondent No.2, State Counsel or the Investigating Officer disclosed the inclusion of S.467, P.P.C in the FIR---Said omission raised serious concern regarding malafide intent on the part of the prosecution---Evidently, State did not file an application seeking cancellation of bail granting order, instead only respondent No. 2 initiated such proceedings---Once bail is granted, it should not be cancelled unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as misuse of concession, interference with the investigation, or commission of a subsequent offence---Mere dissatisfaction of the complainant is not a valid ground for bail cancellation---In the present case, respondent No.2 with mala fide intention relied on the addition of a new section to invoke the prohibitory clause as a ground for cancelling of bail, which was against the settled principles for cancellation of bail---Deletion or substitution of relevant section of P.P.C through Diary Numbers (Zaminies) by the Investigating Officer did not control the judicial discretion of Court exercised under S.497(2), Cr.P.C---In cases of bail, the facts of the FIR or complaints were to be seen by the Court while granting bail and the bail was granted in its entirety, therefore, after granting the bail, the Investigating Officer could not undermine the order passed by the Court in bail petitions by way of addition or deletion of the sections in FIR---Any subsequent changes or additions in the FIR do not automatically invalidate the bail order unless misuse of concession, obstruction of justice, or other compelling reasons are established---In the present case, none of the grounds as mentioned above were available to the Additional Sessions Judge for recalling of the bail granting order---Investigation of the case had already been finalized and physical custody of the petitioner was no more required for the purposes of investigation, therefore, Additional Sessions Judge could not have recalled the bail granting order passed by Judicial Magistrate---No illegality or perversity had been found in the bail granting order---Revision petition was accepted in circumstances and impugned bail recalling order was set-aside.

Hazrat Umar vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 818 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ