2011 PLP 1181 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

The case of the prosecution set-out in the F.I.R. is as under:-- On 7-11-2009 complainant Ali Madad alias Ali Mural lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that there exists old enmity between him and Dille Jan over the landed property. The complainant cultivated paddy crop and after harvesting the same he collected the same on the land. On 6-11-2009 at evening time, when complainant along with his son Ghulam Murtaza alias Papoo alias Calendar were sleeping on the cot for supervising the paddy crop, at 11-30 p.m. complainant and his son woke up on the noise and on the moon light saw five persons standing over them. Out of them, three persons were identified to be Dille Jan with chopper (Kaat), Abdul Rahim with hatchet, Abdul Rahman armed with pistol and two unidentified persons aimed with guns. Accused Dille Jan while saying that complainant party will not be spared and will be murdered, he caused chopper blow to Ghulam Murtaza alias Papoo alias Calendar on his neck. The complainant fell down from the cot raising cries and saved himself. Then accused Abdul Rahim caused hatchet blow to Ghulam Murtaza on his neck. On hue and cry of the complainant, Ali Hassan and Hussain Bux, brother and uncle of complainant came running there, on seeing them accused persons ran away from the scene of offence. Thereafter complainant party saw that Ghulam Murtaza had died on the spot due to injuries. Due to odd hours of night complainant party remained there and in the morning time complainant leaving P.Ws. over dead body of his son appeared at Police Station and lodged F.I.R. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in the first instance learned trial Judge had granted bail to both the applicants, but subsequently on p application filed by the complainant party, bail was rejected/recalled. Against aforesaid order present bail application has been made. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is patently illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that bail granted to both the applicants was on merits and after grant of bail both the applicants cooperated with the prosecution so also Court and did not misuse the concession of bail granted by the trial Court. He further argued that the application made by the complainant party was motivated with desire to harass and punish the present applicants. He further argued that since concession of bail granted to the applicants was not misused it was not open to the learned trial Judge to recall bail granted to the applicants on flimsy grounds. In the end learned counsel submitted that applicants be admitted to bail and they will c.00perate with the trial Court in conclusion of the trial. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He has raised arguments on two folds. Firstly, he has argued that no revision has been filed against the recalling order of the learned trial Court. Secondly, he argued that since no revision has been tiled present bail application is incompetent. He further submitted that' applicants have harassed, coerced and have extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant, hence their bail was rightly recalled. Learned D.P.-G. contended that the trial Judge has granted bail to the present applicants and there is no material before him that the applicants have misused the concession of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of record it appears that in the first instance present applicants had made out case for grant of bail. Once bail has been granted by the trial Court it was not open to the trial Court to recall such bail without having any material before it that the concession of bail was misused or the accused persons absented or avoided judicial process. There is no material on record to substantiate that the applicants had misused the concession of bail granted to them. For the foregoing reasons, I had admitted both the applicants to bail through short order dated 8-7-2010, these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./A-87/K Bail granted.