2011 MLD 283 (PLP)

ATTAULLAII KHAN, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner Abdul Khaliq seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Lakki Marwat vide orders dated 16-8-2010 and 2-11-2010 respectively in case F.I.R No.110 dated 4-8-2010 of Police Station Dadiwala, Tehsil and District Lakki Marwat under section 365, P.P.C.

2. The allegation against the accused/respondents along with their co-accused Zafer Ali Khan as per initial report lodged by the complainant/petitioner is that they are allegedly involved in the kidnapping of his brother, namely, Muhammad Nawaz.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused/ respondents are directly charged in the F.I.R. He argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate while granting bail to the accused/respondents has only discussed the case of respondent Ajab Khan and not touched the case of Ateef-ur-Rahman. He further argued that there is ample evidence on record to connected the accused/respondents with the offence, therefore, they were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

4. I have gone through the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Perusal of the record shows that though the learned Judicial Magistrate has discussed only the case of Ajab Khan, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Lakki while maintaining the bail granting order of the Magistrate has dilated upon the cases of both the respondents.

6. It is to be pointed out that the third accused, namely, Zafer Ali Khan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22-11-2010 and the reasons prevailed therefor have been discussed in paras 7 to 9 therein. The grounds prevailed for that accused are also available to the respondents/accused because the same role has been attributed to them.

7. Besides, the accused/respondent Ajab Khan is admittedly an old person of 71/72 years and also disabled. So, on this ground too, he is entitled to bail.

8. There is no direct evidence against the accused/respondents to connect them with the offence.

9. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the dictum handed down by the Apex Court in the case reported in 1998 SCMR 190 that since the respondents are involved in other F.I.Rs and thus were not entitled to bail is concerned, it is to be pointed out that the facts of the case in hand are different from the reported judgment of the Apex Court. The present application is for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents while the aforesaid reported case was for the grant of bail.

10. Principles for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are quite different from each other. In the application for cancellation of bail, the complainant/petitioner is required to show mis-use of the concession of bail by the accused, tampering with evidence or subsequent criminal pressure on the complainant. The petitioner has not been able to establish any of these ingredients.

11. Consequently, I find no substance in this application for cancellation of bail which is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./390/P Application dismissed.