Advocate Mehwish Imdad Ali

04/05/2025

Section 497(5) CrPC – Cancellation of Bail

Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC) provides the legal basis for cancellation of bail, even after it has been granted. This provision allows the court to revisit and revoke bail if warranted.

🔹 Text of Section 497(5) CrPC:
“A High Court or Court of Session, and, in the case of a person released by itself, any other court, may cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and commit him to custody.”

✅ This means that:

Bail can be cancelled at any stage of the trial or investigation.

Grounds must be strong and compelling.

Misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, or fresh incriminating material can justify cancellation.

🔹 Key Grounds for Cancellation of Bail under 497(5)
Misuse of Bail – Threatening witnesses, repeating the offence, or absconding.

Suppression of Facts – If bail was obtained by concealing material facts.

Change in Circumstances – New evidence comes to light justifying custody.

Violation of Bail Conditions – Breach of terms set by the court.

🔹 Leading Case Law on Section 497(5) CrPC
1. Zulfiqar Ali Jamali v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 394)
Held: Bail was cancelled due to intimidation of witnesses by the accused.

Principle: If the accused is found misusing bail, courts are empowered to cancel it under S. 497(5) CrPC.

2. Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State (2019 SCMR 1129)
Facts: The accused was found to have influenced the investigation after bail.

Held: Supreme Court cancelled bail granted earlier by the High Court.

Principle: Tampering with investigation post-bail justifies cancellation.

3. State v. Nazia (PLD 2006 SC 315)
Facts: Bail was granted to a woman accused of a serious offence.

Held: Court held that liberty once granted can still be withdrawn if fresh grounds arise.

Principle: Cancellation is not barred by earlier grant of bail.

4. State v. Khalid Mahmood (2014 SCMR 1155)
Facts: Bail granted based on misrepresentation.

Held: Bail was revoked due to concealment of material facts.

Principle: Fraudulent or dishonest grant of bail is voidable.

5. Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (2016 PCrLJ 64 Lahore)
Held: Accused involved in repeat criminal acts after being released on bail.

Principle: Repeat offences or endangerment to public justifies cancellation.

28/04/2025

Courts have acknowledged that forcing a woman to chase the husband's Union Council — particularly after Khula — could be unreasonable, especially if:

The husband has left the country or hidden his location.

There is hardship or harassment.

Women's access to justice must be protected under Constitutional rights (Article 4, 9, 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan).

Important Judgments Supporting This:
Mst. Sadaf Aziz v. Union Council (2020 CLC 82 Lahore)

Lahore High Court ruled that if the husband's address is not available, the wife can submit the Khula decree to the Union Council of her own residence.

Held that access to justice and right to divorce must not be blocked due to technicalities.

Mst. Asia Bibi v. Chairman Arbitration Council (PLD 2018 Lahore 400)

High Court permitted registration of divorce/khula in a Union Council where the wife was residing, in the absence of knowledge of husband's current residence.

Nasira Khatoon v. Chairman Arbitration Council (2022 CLC 943 Karachi)

Sindh High Court emphasized pragmatic interpretation: allowing the wife to register divorce/khula where it is practically possible, in her own jurisdiction.

27/04/2025

Approver in Pakistani Law: Sections

Evidence law section Article 16, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Criminal procedure sections Section 337 & 338 CrPC, 1898

Corroboration needed? Yes, practically required.

Key Cases Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1967 SC 681), Sheraz Mehmood (2021 SCMR 1511), Fazal Dad (PLD 1960 SC 325), etc

27/04/2025

Dying Declaration in Pakistani Law

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 Article 46 Statements made by a person as to the cause of their death or circumstances resulting in their death are relevant when the cause of death is in question (i.e., dying declaration).
Note:

Based on the principle "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" (a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth).

Essential Points about Dying Declaration:
It must relate to the cause or circumstances of death.

It is an exception to the general rule against hearsay.

Competence of declarant: The person must be in a fit state of mind while making the statement.

Form: No particular form required — it can be oral, written, gestures, or even nods.

Recording: Ideally by Magistrate, but it can be recorded by police or even an ordinary witness if time is short.

Corroboration: Court looks for truthfulness; corroboration is recommended but not mandatory.

Leading Pakistani Case Laws on Dying Declaration:
Mst. Khatija v. Province of Sindh (2002 SCMR 1268)
➔ Held:

A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found truthful and reliable.

No strict requirement that it must be recorded by a Magistrate.

Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 635)
➔ Held:

Importance of mental fitness of the deceased when making the declaration.

Medical opinion about the deceased’s fitness adds strong weight.

Muhammad Asghar v. The State (PLD 1961 SC 191)
➔ Held:

Dying declaration recorded by police is admissible, but courts prefer one recorded by a Magistrate for higher credibility.

Khadim Hussain v. The State (2010 SCMR 632)
➔ Held:

Courts must scrutinize dying declarations carefully, especially if there is a possibility of tutoring or exaggeration.

Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2002 YLR 2319 Lahore High Court)
➔ Held:

Multiple dying declarations must be consistent; inconsistencies can reduce credibility.

16/07/2024

29/05/2024

ایک ہبہ (گفٹ) قانونی طور پر درست ہونے کے لیے کچھ شرائط کو پورا کرنا ضروری ہے:

1. **ہبہ دینے والا (Donor)**:
- اس کا ذہنی طور پر صحت مند ہونا ضروری ہے تاکہ وہ سمجھ سکے کہ وہ کیا کر رہا ہے۔
- اس کی عمر قانونی ہو اور وہ اس پراپرٹی کا مالک ہو جسے وہ ہبہ کرنا چاہتا ہے۔

2. **پراپرٹی**:
- جس چیز کا ہبہ کیا جا رہا ہے، وہ موجود ہو۔
- شریعت کے مطابق، اس چیز سے فائدہ اٹھانا جائز ہو۔

3. **ہبہ کی شرائط**:
- ہبہ دینے والا کسی دباؤ، جبر یا غیر ضروری اثر و رسوخ سے آزاد ہو۔
- ہبہ کی گئی چیز کا قبضہ ہبہ حاصل کرنے والے (donee) کو یا اس کے نمائندے/نگران کو دیا جائے۔
- ہبہ دینے والے کو پراپرٹی کی ملکیت اور قبضہ سے دستبردار ہونا چاہیے اور واضح طور پر ہبہ حاصل کرنے والے کو ملکیت منتقل کرنے کی نیت ظاہر کرنی چاہیے۔
- ہبہ حاصل کرنے والے کو پراپرٹی کا جسمانی قبضہ حاصل کرنا چاہیے۔

**مسلم قانون کے مطابق، ایک درست ہبہ کے تین اہم عناصر ہوتے ہیں:**

1. **پیشکش (Tender)**: ہبہ دینے والا پیشکش کرتا ہے۔
2. **قبولیت (Acceptance)**: ہبہ حاصل کرنے والا پیشکش کو قبول کرتا ہے۔
3. **قبضہ (Possession)**: ہبہ کی گئی پراپرٹی کا قبضہ ہبہ حاصل کرنے والے کو منتقل کیا جاتا ہے۔

14/05/2024

2024 SCMR 913
Crl.P.L.A.1241-L/2023
Sagheer Ahmed v. The State, etc
Possession and transportation of 1420 grams charas - Bail , grant ofFurther inquiry --- Delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory --- Sale custody of samples with the police not established --- Accused was arrested on the same day of the registration of the FIR --- As per the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , the sample of the charas was received by Forensic Science Laboratory after a delay of more than a month --- Provisions relating to the sending of samples to the forensic Science Labora were provided in Rule 4 ( 2 ) of Control of Narcotic Substances ( Government Analysts ) Rules , 2001 , which provides that the samples may be dispatched for analysis under cover of Test Memorandum specified in Form - I at the earliest , but not later than seventy - two hours of the seizure --- There was nothing on record to show to whom the alleged recovered narcotics were handed over at the police station for safe custody during that period --- Fact of the safe custody of the recovered narcotic substance is to be established or proved by the prosecution during the trial ; however , the unreasonable delay of more than one month in the present case could be considered at the time of deciding the bail , which made the case of the petitioner ( accused ) one of further inquiry.Accused was behind the bars since his arrest and the trial had not concluded so far , even after a considerable period had elapsed --- Moreover , the maximum sentence for the alleged offence was fourteen years . and as such , it did not attract the bar of Section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act , 1997 --- Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed , and the petitioner was allowed bail after arrest .