1999 P Cr (PLP)

5. Mr. Ghulam Hurr Khan, Advocate for the petitioner, accused/respondents Nos. l to 3 in person, alongwith their counsel Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, and Syed Saeed Hassan Sherazi, learned Assistant Advocate‑General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused.

6. It was held in the following cases that the bail cancellation application may not be accepted when the challan is either complete or ripe for submission in the trial Court. The relevant parts of the said judgments are reproduced:‑‑ (1)Mst. Irshad Begum v. Muhammad Afzal and another 1985 SCMR 1691 "‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Petitioner seeking cancellation of bail allowed by High Court to accused‑‑‑Trial commencing shortly‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere." (2) Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Trial was to commence within a fortnight‑‑‑Cancellation of bail at such stage held would not be proper. " (3) Mian Dad v. The State and another 1992 SCMR 1418 "‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Supreme Court, ordinarily would not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to bail, particularly in cases of murder, when the trial was going to commence so as to avoid discussion and remarks on the merits of the case. "

7. Accordingly by following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I would dismiss this petition. Order accordingly.

8. I may also remark here, before parting with the judgment that I had also refused to cancel the bail in cases where the order of the Sessions Court for releasing the accused on bail was neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, needed no interference. The said orders were recorded in the following cases:‑‑ (1) Muhammad Yaqoob v. Akbar Ali 1996 PCr.LJ 1371 ‑‑‑‑S. 324/34‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Reasons given by Sessions Court for releasing the accused on bail being cogent and neither arbitrary nor perverse, needed no interference‑‑‑Case of accused was one of further inquiry and they had been rightly allowed bail‑‑‑Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly. " (2) Diyar Khan v. Said Khan 1998 PCr.LJ 798 ‑‑‑‑5.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Reasons adduced by Sessions Judge for granting bail to accused were justified as same were also supported even by the prosecution version, especially the version given in F. I. R. ‑‑‑Sessions Judge had given cogent/valid reasons for extending concession of bail to accused and bail granting order was neither arbitrary nor perverse‑‑‑Such order could not be interfered with because when bail was granted by competent Court same could not be easily recalled as a matter of routine, in the absence of solid reasons showing that same was either obtained through misrepresentation/suppression of facts or that concession of bail was misused to hamper/obstruct course of fair investigation‑‑‑‑Petition for cancellation of bail having no substance, was rejected in circumstances." N.H.Q./252/P Petition dismissed.