2008 PLP 1047 (MLD)

MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved with the order, dated 21-7-2007, whereby application of the complainant under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the bail granted earlier to the applicant has been cancelled. He submits that the order of cancellation of bail does not contain reasoning while sound reasons are required to review earlier order for cancellation of bail. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he caused injury to Jan Muhammad and that injury has been described under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C., which provides five years punishment and according to medical certificate it is not skull deep, but only skin deep, which shows that this is not a serious injury, while injured Jan Muhammad is enjoying normal life. Learned counsel further submits that there are counter-cases in between the parties, while challan has been submitted but case is not being proceeded due to pendency of this application.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that after grant of bail the applicant is pressurizing the complainant to migrate from the place and has misused the concession of bail, therefore, application for cancellation of bail, was rightly allowed.

3. Learned State counsel submits that only allegation against the applicant is in respect of causing injury to P.W. Jan Muhammad. The said injury is skin deep only as per medical certificate and is not fatal, therefore, he has no objection to the grant of this bail application.

4. After hearing the arguments and keeping in view that earlier bail was granted, therefore, to review that order strong reasons are required, while the learned trial Court has only relied upon the alleged threat, which is common in such type of cases. The injury attributed to the applicant falls within the meaning of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C., providing five years punishment and that, too, according to medical certificate, is only skin deep. It is also to be noted that the case is pending before the trial Court and is not being proceeded due to pendency of this bail application, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and complete the proceedings as early as possible.

5. In such situation, with the above observation it seems that the applicant's action does not fall within the prohibitory clause and his case requires further inquiry, hence, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed and order, dated 21-7-2007 is set aside. The applicant to remain on bail in terms of the earlier passed by learned trial Court in respect to bail of the applicant. H.B.T./S-23/K Application allowed.