2005 PLP 1657 (MLD)

Through this criminal miscellaneous the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of the respondents Nos.1 and 2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No.61 of 2004 was registered on 1-6-2004 on the complaint of Muhammad Naeem-petitioner against Faiz Muhammad, Riaz Muhammad and other unknown persons under section 452/324/337-H(2)/427/148/149 P.P.C. The petitioner, Muhammad Naeem and accused Faiz Muhammad and Riaz Muhammad are real brothers and there was a dispute regarding Robi Electric Store situated in Bohar Gate, Teh. and Distt. Multan. The respondents No.1 and 2 applied for bail before arrest in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Multan. Interim bail was granted on 8-6-2004. On 5-7-2004 the petitioner made a statement that if the respondents give an undertaking that they will not initiated criminal proceedings against him. He has no objection on the confirmation of bail before arrest. This statement was duly recorded and signed by the petitioner. On the other hand, respondents also made statement that they will not take any illegal action against the complainant nor they will go to his shop and create law and order situation they will approach the Court for the redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. Similar statement was given by Riaz Muhammad. On 8-7-2004, Muhammad Nadeem, the third brother of the complainant and accused, stated before the Court that he will not take the law into his own hands and will not entered into any fight with Faiz Muhammad and Riaz Muhammad but he will proceed in accordance with law for getting his legal rights. After recording their statements, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan, vide this order dated 16-7-2004, confirmed the ad-interim bail granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of his Court. That on 16-9-2004 Muhammad Nadeem filed application under section 497 (5) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail of Faiz Muhammad and Riaz Muhammad learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan vide his order dated 18-1-2005, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the application having no merits. Being dissatisfied with order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, this criminal miscellaneous has been filed for cancellation of bail of the respondents.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Despite the repeated queries of this Court learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any reasonable ground under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail granted to B respondents No.1 and

2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent had initiated a criminal proceedings under section 145, P.P.C. against the petitioner complainant, and they had resiled from their commitment. Hence, the concession of bail granted to the respondents be withdrawn.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the said application is totally misconceived and has no merits. There is not a single incident attributed to the respondents for taking any criminal action against the petitioner. It is admitted by the learned counsel that proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated but that is the legal right of the respondents and at the time of recording of their statements. It was stated by the respondents that they still not take any illegal action against the petitioner, hence, the initiating of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are legal proceedings and no bar was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 16-7-2004 from taking legal action through Court of law against the petitioner. In fact both the parties were allowed by the Court to resort to legal proceedings and were restrained from any criminal act or action against each other. In the instant case there is no plausible grounds for cancellation of bail, hence, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1162/L Application dismissed.