2008 PLP 2287 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

Hayatullah Khan, complainant/petitioner, by way of this application filed under section 497 (5), Cr.P.C. has sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents, Samiullah and Mir Aslam, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Lakki Marwat vide order dated 28-5-2008 in case F.I.R. No.571 dated 1-12-2007 under section 324/34, P.P.C. of Police Station Lakki Marwat.

2. According to the first information report lodged by Hayatullah Khan in injured condition in the emergency ward of Civil Hospital Lakki on 1-12-2007 at 1015 hours, he along with relative Luqman had gone to the fields for cutting wood and sugarcane. Luqman was busy in cutting wood at some distance when at about 1000 hours accused Saifullah, Sanaullah, Mir Aslam, armed with Kalashnikovs and Samiullah armed with .30 bore pistol came there. They caught hold of him and gave him butt blows, whereafter he was let free but at some distance all of them fired at him with intent to kill him with their respective weapons with which he was injured. Thereafter, they fired at Luqman but luckily he was escaped unhurt. Motive for the offence was alleged to be dispute over womenfolk. After their arrest, Samiullah and Mir Aslam were admitted td bail through the impugned order and hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused / respondents are directly charged by the complainant in his promptly lodged report in a daylight occurrence; that they had remained fugitive from law for a long unexplained period of five months; that the trial was in progress and, therefore, the grant of bail to the accused/respondents through the impugned order was not warranted.

4. In reply, learned Deputy Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the accused/respondents supported the impugned order on the grounds, inter alia, that since Sanaullah co-accused of the respondents assigned similar role had already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Lakki vide order dated 29-1-2008 and four persons were charged for inflicting a single injury to the victim complainant, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.

5. I have carefully gone through the record and anxiously considered the arguments advanced at the bar.

6. Without touching deep merits of the case at this stage, lest it may prejudice case of either party at trial, suffice it to say that four persons are charged by the complainant for causing him a solitary injury with fire arms; Sanaullah, co-accused of the respondents, had already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Lakki vide order dated 29-1-2008 and the role attributed to the accused/respondents is identical to him, prima facie, the case of the accused/respondents was of `further enquiry' entitling them to the concession of bail. The impugned order is, therefore, based on correct premises and does not warrant interference by this Court, as for cancellation of bail strong grounds have to be made out as held in the cases of Muzaffar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others 2004 SCMR 231 and Qadir Bakhsh v. Allah Wasaya and another reported in 2008 SCMR 182.

7. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./94/P Application dismissed.