2010 PLP 2259 (YLR)

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.

Zain ud Din, complainant/petitioner has moved this application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Farman, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu dated 5-6-2010 in case F.I.R. No.636 dated 15-10-2009 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. of Police Station City, Bannu.

2. Arguments heard and the available record perused.

3. According to the complainant, on the day of occurrence, he was selling `Cholay' in front of Police Station Saddar Bannu when at about 1230 hours Shah Qiaz, armed with Kalashnikov, Farman with pistol, and Raqeebaaz empty-handed came there. Shah Qiaz and Farman fired at him with which he was hit and got injured. Immediately after the occurrence, they decamped from the spot.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had once recalled bail granted to the respondent but the trial Court without considering the principle laid down in the afore-said order of this Court dated 30-4-2010, has granted bail to the respondent. According to learned counsel the accused-respondent is directly charged and he is not entitled to bail on the ground of cross case alone which per se cannot be made basis for bail.

5. I have perused the order of this Court recorded on 30-4-2010 vide which the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent was cancelled. It is to be noted that the order recorded by this Court is in respect of matter relating to pre-arrest bail. The settled principles in case of pre-arrest bail are different from the principles laid down for post-arrest bail. Similarly, the principles of cancellation of bail are different and needs strong reasons to recall the bail already granted by a competent Court of law.

6. I have minutely considered the case of the petitioner in the light of afore-mentioned principles. Very strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancellation of bail which are lacking herein. Even otherwise the grant of bail to the respondent seems to be based on sound reasons keeping in view the injury on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant. The fire was not repeated in spite of opportunity available to the accused and this fact had created doubt about the intention of the respondent to kill the complainant and, therefore, it was a case of further inquiry.

7. To sum up, the cancellation of bail petition is devoid of force on the grounds that:-- (a) The petitioner cannot avail benefit of order of this Court, because the matter decided was in respect of cancellation of grant of bail before arrest while the instant case deals with post arrest bail and different principles/parameters are applied and (b) That the instant matter pertains to cancellation of bail which again is to be dealt with under different grounds which includes strong and exceptional reasons to be established.

8. Resultantly, finding no substance in this bail cancellation application, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./211/P Application dismissed.