1996 PLP 1884 (MLD)

Khush Dil Khan Momand for Petitioner. Saifur Rehman Kiyani, A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 16th July 1996. By this order I propose to dispose of the present Bail Cancellation Application as well as Criminal Miscellaneous No.285 of 1996 (Luqman v. Multan etc.) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.293 of 1996 (Luqman v. Hazrat Gul etc.).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case in hand are that Habibur Rahman complainant had lodged F.I.R. No.751 on 25‑11‑1995 at 13‑45 hours wherein he stated that he was fired upon by Hazrat Gul, Haji Muhammad Shah (respondents Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.293 of 1996), Amir Shah (respondent No.l in Criminz' Miscellaneous No.284 of 1996), Rahmat Gul, Babu, Zarmat, Nazar Khan (respondents Nos.3 to 6 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.293 of 1996) and Multan (respondent No.1 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.285 of 1996) when he was standing, with his nephew, Ihsan son of Fazal Rahman, near Scheme Chowk at Peshawar‑Kohat Road. That due to their indiscriminate firing his nephew was killed on the spot whereas he escaped unhurt. He further alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by quite a few persons who were present at the spot.

3. After having failed to get bail from the Court of I11aqa Magistrate the respondents, in various petitions mentioned above, approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar who released all of them on bail. Hence the petitions for cancellation of bail.

4. It may be stated at the outset that the present petitions for cancellation of bails have not been moved either by the State or by the complainant. Instead one Luqman has filed these petitions. Luqman is neither a complainant nor an eye‑witness in the case in hand and, therefore, I am of the considered view that he has no locus standi to file these petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, strenuously urged that the' petitioner being the real aggrieved person was fully competent to apply for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. In support of his contention he placed reliance on case titled Khalid Mahmood v. Abdul Qadir Shah reported as 1994 PCr.LJ 1784. It was held:‑‑‑ "S.497(5).‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Aggrieved person competent to move .for cancellation of bail‑‑‑State in many suitable cases shows apathy and does not make a move in the matter of cancellation of bail‑‑ In such cases a private person who is directly interested in the prosecution i.e., the complainant or the near relative of the deceased or an injured person may legitimately file an application for cancellation of bail granted .to an accused person and they being the real aggrieved persons cannot be debarred from approaching the Court of law for cancellation of bail."

5. I have gone through the said judgment, recorded by his lordship Mr. Justice Mian Nazir Akhtar, an Honourable Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, thoroughly and am of the view that the dictum laid down in that case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the bail cancellation application was filed by the complainant whose real brother had been murdered. This is not the Case here. In the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Habibur Rahman complainant, who happens to be the father of the petitioner. Only the i complainant being the real aggrieved person, could file applications for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. A perusal of the F.I.R. would further reveal that the petitioner's name has not been mentioned in it either as an injured victim, as alleged by him in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., or as a P.W., who had allegedly seen the occurrence. In the circumstances, I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to have moved these petitions, which are misconceived and therefore dismissed. N.H.Q./1986/P Petitions dismissed.