2014 PLP 803 (YLR)

SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.

Haji Karam Din, who is accused in case F.I.R. No.111 dated 30-10-2013 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. of Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar, was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar, vide his order dated 18-12-2013 and aggrieved from the same Zahir Din, the complainant has come to this court for its cancellation.

2. The allegation against the accused/ respondent as per F.I.R. referred to above are that on 30-10-2013 Abdullah Jan, A.S.-I. to Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar was on gusht of the Illaqa when got information about the lying of a dead-body on a road leading to Madina Colony and hence he rushed to there, where Zahir Din brother of the deceased made him a report to the effect that on the day of occurrence, at early morning lie along with his brother Nizamuddin had come to Peshawar in connection with their personal business, when Irshad Khan son of Karam Din made a call to the deceased on his cell phone and asked him to come to Dalazak Road Peshawar and accordingly he proceeded to there all alone; that at Sham Vela he got information that his brother has been done to death through firearm and hence he rushed to there, where he found his brother lying dead. According to the complainant he is fully satisfied that his brother has been murdered by accused/ respondent Karam Din and five others. Motive behind the offence, as stated by the complainant, is that some two years prior to the occurrence, sister of co-accused Zia-ur-Rehman had eloped and that the accused were suspecting the deceased. The matter was patched up but the ill-will was still there.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. It appears from the record available on file that in this case the occurrence took place on 30-10-2013 at about 1730 hours, whereas the report has been lodged on the same day at about 1810 hours. Zahir Din, brother of the deceased, is the complainant of the present case and he has charged the accused/respondent along with five others for commission of the offence.

5. Admittedly and as is evident from the record the call which the deceased had received on his cell phone as per version of the complainant was from co-accused Irshad. Again the motive as stated in the F.I.R. has been attributed to another accused Zia-ur-Rehman, as according to the complainant some two years prior to the occurrence his sister had eloped and the accused were suspecting the deceased.

6. Moreover, the I.O. during the spot inspection has recovered two empties of .30 bore from the place of wardaat and as per opinion of the Arms Expert both the empties have been fired from one and the same .30 bore weapon and as against that six persons have been charged and the question arises that which one was having pistol of .30 bore and by whom it was used while committing the crime is the question which could be resolved at the trial.

7. Again there is nothing on record, whatsoever, which could show that the accused/ respondent after his release has misused or abused the concession of bail.

8. Above all, it is settled principle of law that grounds for cancellation of bail are altogether different from that of grant of bail and once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is rarely interfered with, unless the impugned order is palpably illegal, arbitrary and perverse or against the record. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the present case.

9. In the attending circumstances of the case, there is wide scope of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused/ respondent and which position stands rightly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar, resultantly, the petition for cancellation of bail stands dismissed in limine. MWA/34/P Petition dismissed.