IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Cr. Misc. Application No.S-621 of 2020

Cr. Misc. Application No.S-620 of 2020

 

 

Applicant:                                          Mst. Bakhtawar Mahtam through Mr. Amanullah G. Malik, Advocate.

State:                                                 Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah D.P.G.

Date of hearing:                                 01.10.2021

Date of decision:                                01.10.2021 

 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:              Through both captioned applications, cancellation of bail has been sought against the Respondents, who have been granted bail vide order dated 31.10.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Aqil, in FIR bearing Crime No.05/2020, for offences punishable under Section 376/2, 452, 506/2 PPC, registered at P.S. Mubarakpur, hence this application.  

 

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.02.2020, complainant was present at her house where the applicants forcibly entered her house and got her to guest house and committed zina with her.

 

3.       Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, submits that names of the Respondents are mentioned in FIR with specific role of committing zina with the victim/Complainant; that statement of applicant/victim/Complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before concerned Magistrate, wherein she stated that Respondents committed forcibly zina with her; that learned trial Judge granted the bail to the accused/Respondents on the ground that DNA is negative; however it seems to be deeper appreciation, which is to be decided at trial stage; that case of the Complainant is very clear and crystal supported with evidence that Respondents/accused committed cognizable offence and the case is fit for cancellation of bail. Hence, he prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/Respondents by learned trial Court.   

4.       Learned DPG has supported the impugned order and submits that there should be exceptional strong grounds required for cancellation of bail i.e. if concession of bail is misused or there is apprehension of tempering of evidence by the accused.

 

5.       I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

 

6.       On perusal of penultimate paragraph of bail granting order by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gander Based/ Violence Court, Sukkur, it appears that per medical evidence, there is no mark of violence on any part of the body, which is uncommon when allegedly five persons have cogently committed rape with the victim, which malafide on the part of the Complainant cannot be ruled out.

 

7.       It is a settled proposition of law that the grounds for grant of bail are totally different from the ground for cancellation of bail already granted to an accused. The only point required to be considered in the instant cancellation application is that the bail concession is misused or there is apprehension of tampering of evidence by the accused, which both are missing. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any illegality, or jurisdictional defect in the bail granting order, therefore, I do not find any good ground/justification to cancel the bail already granted to the accused-respondents by the court of competent jurisdiction, hence applications are hereby dismissed.

 

8.       It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of captioned Miscellaneous applications.

 

 

JUDGE

Faisal Mumtaz/PS