2002 PLP 2440 (YLR)

Muhammad Waseem for the State. This application for cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal on 3‑4‑2002 and 20‑4‑2002, has been filed on behalf of Munawar Khan petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were involved in case F.I.R. No. 196 of 2001 registered on 29‑11‑2001 in Police Station, Kot Nainan, District Narowal under sections 302/148 and 149, P.P.C.

3. The F.I.R. was lodged by the present petitioner Munawar Khan stating therein that on the day of occurrence around 6‑00 p.m., he and his son Allah Rakha Khan alias Kala, Nasir Khan and Riaz Khan were returning to their village while Shabbir Khan, Muzzamil Khan, Abdul Rauf Khan, Adeel Khan, Ahad Khan and Bagga Khan who were equipped with tire‑arm weapons were sitting in ambush attacked them. Shabbir Khan accused raised 'Lalkara' whereupon Ahad Khan fired with a rifle hitting Allah Rakha on his head near the ear. Then Adeel Khan fired with a rifle hitting Allah Rakha on his left eye‑brow and Allah Rakha fell down on the ground. The remaining culprits started firing indiscriminately and the P.Ws. saved themselves by lying down on the ground. The accused continued firing at them. They were identified in the moonlight and the accused fled away raising ' Lalkaras' . They were taking Allah Rakha to the Civil Hospital, Shakargarh in injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries while still on the way. Hence the matter was reported to the Police.

4. The accused/respondents Nos.1 to 4 applied for bail through two separate bail applications and which were allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh on 3‑4‑2002 and 20‑4‑2002, respectively. Aggrieved of the said orders the petitioner has filed the instant petition for cancellation of the aforesaid orders whereby respondents Nos.1 to 4 were admitted to bail by the warned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments and have perused the record. It is surprising that in this application, the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. l to 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, has not been sought on any valid legal grounds. It has been stated in para. 3 of the petition that the accused/respondents had been released on bail on account of blessings of the Police as the accused were highly resourceful and affluent persons. In para.4 of the petition it has been stated that the respondents were not entitled to any leniency as shown by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh.

6. It is a clear position of law that the principles relating to the cancellation of bail are different than those for the grant of bail. In the instant application for cancellation of bail, there is no allegation that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are trying to tamper with 'the prosecution evidence or have in any way misused the concession of bail or that they are trying to abscond. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that as a result of the latest investigation respondents Nos.1 to 4 have been found guilty. It may be so, but the Court cannot recall the bail granting order merely on the ground that the accused who were earlier found to be innocent were found guilty by another Investigating Officer Admittedly, the opinion of the Police is not binding on the Court and the Court has to draw its own conclusion after going through the relevant record.

7. In any way, in this petition for cancellation of bail, no valid ground has been urged for the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.1 to 4 and thus the petition is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./M‑1334/L Application for cancellation of bail dismissed