1989 P Cr (PLP)

M. Shah for the Respondents. This is an application for cancellation of bail earlier granted by this Court to respondent Muhammad Ibrahim who apprehended his arrest in a case registered against him and in, other co‑accused in the case under sections 397, 149 and 512, P.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution against the respondent No.l, the latter was a member of sin unlawful assembly which had attempted to cause murder of applicant Shah Ali. The role attributed to the respondent No.l was that of ineffective firing from his revolver which he was allegedly carrying at the time of the commission of the offence. When the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for pre‑arrest bail came up for final hearing before this Court, bail was granted to the applicant after hearing the counsel for the respondent and the learned Advocate‑General who appeared on behalf of the State and after taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration. I have now heard Mr. lmdad Hussain Kazi, learned counsel for the respondent and the learned A.A.‑G. The only grounds urged in support of the application by Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi are, firstly that respondent Muhammad Ibrahim was one of the members of the unlawful assembly and had committed the alleged offence and had caused as many as seven injuries on the person of the applicant and one of such injuries caused on the ribs of the applicant was declared by the medical officer to be grievous. Secondly. it has been argued that one of the co‑accused in the case, namely, Mohammad Yamin, had also moved an application for bail before this Court which was dealt with by my learned brother Mohammad Mazhar Ali, J. but his request for hail was not granted. However, it has been conceded by Mr. lmdad Hussain Kazi that the same learned Judge after reconsidering the matter granted bail to the co‑accused by another order passed by him on 28‑4‑1988, After giving the matter my best consideration, I find that the application now filed by the applicant for cancellation of bail does not merit consideration. All the relevant factors now highlighted by Mr. lmdad Hussain Kazi had already been considered by me while passing the earlier order dated 30‑12‑1987 is evidence from my order bail had been granted to the respondent as non of the injuries received by the applicant had been attributed to him. The only allegation against the respondent was that of ineffective firing which was not considered sufficient for rejecting his request for pre‑arrest bail. The argument of Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi that the bail application of the co‑accused had been rejected by my learned brother Mohammad Mazhar Ali, J. also has no force as the application of the co‑accused had been considered by my learned brother on its own merits and then rejected. However, admittedly, as pointed out above, my learned brother later granted bail to the co‑accused by another order passed by him on 28‑4‑1988. Although I am unable to comprehend why the bail application filed by the respondent No.l was placed before me when my learned brother had already dealt with the bail application of the co‑accused in the case, but since the bail application of the respondent has been considered by me on merits and an order has been passed thereon, I find no reasons to revise the same as nothing substantial has been pointed out by Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi to persuade me to, grant the applicant's request for cancellation of the bail. In the result, I find no force in this application and the same is dismissed. M.Y.H./S‑254/K Petition dismissed.