2012 PLP 472 (MLD)

KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

The petitioner through instant petition seeks cancellation of bail granted to private respondent No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I.Khain vide order dated 15-6-2011 in case F.I.R. No. 153 dated 16-4-2011 under sections 365/302/201/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar District D.I. Khan.

2. Short facts of the instant case are that complainant on 3-3-2011 at 1700 hours lodged a report to the local police to the effect that his son Muhammad Yousaf aged about 26/27 years is working of labour, yesterday i.e. 2-3-2011 at about 1500 hours his son went to field situated at Basti Chirak Wali for the care of wheat and till now he did not return. He is searching him. Four years prior Ismail son of Haji Muhammad Ramzan caste Baloch r/o Basti Chirak Wali has suspected his son on the illicit relation with the daughter of Ismail. He suspected that his son Muhammad Yousaf has been abducted by Ismail, Afsar, Mira sons of Haji Ramzan and on the basis of which the ibid case F.I.R. was chalked out.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is direct evidence against accused/respondent which has not been taken into consideration by the lower Court. He further submitted that the accused/respondent has been involved in heinous offence and he remained absconder for more than one month. He argued that the accused/respondent was charged by the petitioner on 16-4-2011 and arrested on 11-5-2011. He also referred to the statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. He urged that the accused/ respondent is not entitled to the concession of bail and his bail may be recalled.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused has defended the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I.Khan and argued that the petitioner has failed to prove the misuse of bail or tampering with evidence by the respondent/accused. According to him investigation is complete and the accused/respondent is no required for investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner has not charged the accused/respondent in the F.I.R. or in the statements of Muhammad Mushtaq and Muhammad Javed recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. and the accused/respondent only charged mere on suspicion without giving any source of information by the petitioner. Learned D.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State conceded and stated that he has no objection if the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I.Khan be maintained.

5. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and also perused the order of the lower Court.

6. It is an admitted fact that the accused/respondent is neither charged in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of other P.Ws. recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused/ respondent has only been charged mere on suspicion by petitioner without mentioning the source of information. It is now settled law that once a Court of competent jurisdiction passes bail order, very strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the same. Bail can be cancelled where person on bail repeats offence, hampers investigation, makes some efforts to tamper with evidence, commits some acts of violence against police or prosecution witnesses or manages to flee away from country or beyond control of sureties.

7. None of the above mentioned grounds is available in the petition filed by the complainant for cancellation of bail. I rely upon 2004 SCMR 231 and 2011 MLD 725.

8. Therefore, I do not see any justification to cancel the bail granted to respondents/accused, therefore, the instant bail cancellation petition is dismissed. H.B.T./302/P Petition dismissed.