2 others--﷓Respondents (PLP)

S.Amjad Shah and Fazal‑e‑Haq Abbasi for Respondents Date of hearing: 5th November, 2001 The respondents namely, Waqar Ahmad and Sajjad Ahmad, charged under section 324/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.906 dated 26‑10‑2000, Police Station Haripur City, were granted pre‑arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Haripur, which was subsequently confirmed by him through order, dated 7‑12‑2000. 2. Shehryar Khan and Munir Ahmad petitioners, feeling aggrieved, have moved instant application under section 497(5),. Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents per the impugned order. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on the day of occurrence, i.e.,‑ 26‑10‑2000 at about 11‑00 a.m. complainant Shehryar Khan accompanied by his class‑fellows Munir Ahmad Khan and Adeel Khan, was on his way to his home and when they reached near Tractors‑Shop GTS Road, Haripur, distance 3/4 kilometres from the police station, the respondents standing on the road side, started firing at them with .30 bore pistols, in consequence of which the complainant sustained injury on leg whereas his companion Munir Ahmad Khan received injuries on wrist and buttock. Adeel Khan and many others present on the spot witnessed the occurrence. A previous quarrel is the motive leading to the incident. 4. Mirza Abdullah Jan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners attempted to argue that there was sufficient material on file to prove the complicity of the respondents in the commission of crime and as such the learned Sessions Judge had no justifiable reason to extend extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the respondents notwithstanding the fact that the respondents were directly nominated in the promptly lodged report and the prosecution version was fully supported by P. W. Adeel and the medical evidence on record. Additionally, it was urged that affidavits of Muhammad Umar, Sher Khan and 7 others sworn after 18 years of the incident should not have been made a ground for making the case of the respondents arguable for the purpose of bail. To augment the contentions, reliance was place on Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Ashraf and another 1994 PCr.LJ 804, Khalil Ahmad v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 214, Qaid‑e‑Azam v. The State 2000 PCr. LJ 21, Dr. Zulkifal v. Pervez Akhtar and others 2000 PCr. LJ 284, Mashooq Ali alias Iqbal v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 292, Waheed, Murad v. Ajmal Khan and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1951 and Muhammad Sharif v. Shafqat Hussain alias Shaukat and another 1999 SCMR 338. 5. Syed Amjid Ali Shah, Advocate for the State assisted by Mr. Fazal‑e‑Haq Abbasi, Advocate for the respondents, on the contrary, supported the impugned order and submitted that in view of the material on record consisting of the statement of Aurangzeb and affidavits sworn by, 9 persons, the learned Sessions Judge was quite justified to confirm ad‑interim bail of the respondents and the impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal warranting interference of this Court. 6. It is settled proposition of law that considerations for the grant of bail and the considerations for the cancellation of bail are` absolutely different. Once an accused person has been released on bail, his liberty cannot be interfered with lightly as held by this Court in `Usman v. Muhammad Azam and another 2001 PCr.LJ 1461. In this case learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade me to hold that the bail granting order is violative of the legal norms and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. No extraordinary circumstance has been pointed A out by the learned counsel as may constitute an impediment in the way of I granting bail to the accused‑respondents. The grounds advanced for grant of bail by the learned Sessions Judge are cogent and convincing. The legitimate grounds which have been. recognized by he superior Courts for cancellation of bail are missing in the present case. The accused -respondents are on bail since 7‑12‑2000 and there is nothing on the file to suggest that they had misused their liberty by indulging in similar' criminal activity or interfered with course of investigation. It is not denied that High Court has the jurisdiction to refuse to cancel the bail if the application is found to have been made without any basis and on grounds which remain unsubstantiated. The case‑law produced on behalf of the petitioners is distinguishable and speaks of the different situation. 7. Based on the above discussion I find that petitioners have not successfully demonstrated the existence of circumstances justifying the cancellation of bail. The application fails which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is maintained. H.B.T./399/P Application dismissed.