ORDER SHEET
__________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
__________________________________________________
1) For orders on M.A. 4114/2007.
2) For katcha peshi.
20.9.2007.
Mr. Nasir Mehmood Choudhry for applicant.
Mr. M. Sabir Hyder AAG.
__________
The applicant has resorted to file application for cancellation of Pre-Arrest bail granted to the respondent No. 1 by Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge Karachi South in Crime No. 282/2006 under Section 435, 109 PPC registered at P.S. Kharadar.
Controversy has arisen as the respondent No. 1 serving in Special Branch on several occasions obtained loan from the applicant, on the demand of the return of the loan the respondent became furious extended threats as a consequence thereto on 31.10.2006 applicant’s car bearing No. K7986 Model 1986 TOYOTA COROLLA was set on fire in presence of the applicant’s servants Gohar Ali and Muhammad Bashir.
Learned counsel for applicant has contended that there are different conditions and parameters, through judicial pronouncements as well as legal system developed for granting post arrest and Pre-Arrest bail, an exceptional relief available to an accused when the case is set up on the basis of malafides, unjustified harassment at the hands of the police. It is next urged that after the occurrence was reported to police, PWs Gohar Ali, Muhammad Bashir and Kamran had claimed to have witnessed the incident could identify the accused yet the respondent No. 1 was not put to identification parade which speaks in volume about the conduct of investigation agency, on account of disappearance of the respondent No. 1 he was challaned under section 512 Cr.P.C later he obtained Pre-Arrest bail succeeded to circumvent entire case according to his own whims.
Learned AAG has candidly pointed out that the applicant had not agitated the points, sine qua non for cancellation of bail granted by the competent Court of law.
I have conceded the arguments advanced at bar. There is no cavil to the effect that the separate norms for grant of post arrest and Pre-Arrest bail have been set up on different parameters. For the purpose of cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the competent Court the applicant was required to show circumstances warranting interference in the impugned order. From the memo of the petition it transpires that investigating officer intended to dispose of the case in “A” class but due to intervention of the District Attorney, challan was submitted and case was registered. No case is made out warranting interference in the impugned order. However at this juncture learned counsel for applicant has sought direction for expeditious disposal of the case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances as no case is spelled out for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 1, application seems to be misconceived hereby stands dismissed. However trial Court is directed to dispose off the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Orders accordingly.
J U D G E