1996 P Cr (PLP)

Fateh Mahmood for the State. Ataullah Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1996. Muhammad Yaqoob, petitioner/complainant, has filed the present application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Izafi Zilla Qazi, Swat, vide his order, dated 16-8-1995.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Yaqoob lodged a report vide F.I.R. No.64 in Police Station Saidu Sharif on 16-5-1995 wherein it has been stated that on 16-5-1995 he alongwith his uncle (Gul Hilal) and his brother (Hayatullah) went to Baligram to look after their land, that on seeing them the respondents, who were already waiting for them there, started indiscriminate firing and resultantly Mian Gul Hilal (uncle) and Hayatuflah (brother) were hit and seriously injured.

3. The complainant accordingly charged all the respondents for having effectively fired at them. The motive for the alleged occurrence was stated to be an old dispute over some other landed property. After the registration of the case (vide F.I.R. No.64, dated 16-5-1995) the respondents were arrested.

4. The respondents in the first instance knocked at the door of Illaqa Qazi, Swat for the redress of their grievance and prayed that they be released on bail. Their request was however turned down vide order, dated 14-6-1995.

5. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Izafi Zilla Qazi (Additional Sessions Judge) and prayed that they be granted bail. Their prayer was accepted and the respondents were released on bail. Hence this petition for cancellation of

6. Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Attaullah Khan, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate for the State (respondent No.5) present and heard. I have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.

7. It must be stated at the very outset that the reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge for releasing the respondents on bail are quite cogent and are neither arbitrary nor perverse and thus need no interference by this Court. It is now well-settled principle of law that if the bail is allowed then it could not be recalled in the absence of solid reason showing that the same was either obtained through misrepresentation or suppression of facts or that the concession of bail was being misused to hamper/obstruct the course of fair investigation.

8. Keeping in view that the consideration for grant of bail and those for cancellation of bail are quite different and that once the bail is granted by the competent Court, this Court will interfere only in exceptional cases. I have considered/appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that, without dilating upon the merits of the case at this stage, the case of the respondents is that of further enquiry and that they were rightly released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. This petition for cancellation of bail is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly rejected.

9. The prosecuting agency is however, directed to submit the complete challan within one month from the receipt of record positively. N.H.Q./1923/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.