1998 PLP 1312 (MLD)

Riaz Naveed Butt for Petitioner. Mahmood Khan Mallick for Respondents. This revision petition is directed against the orders passed on March 13, 1997 and April 16, 1997 by the Sessions Judge Kotli whereby the concession of bail was allowed to the accused-respondents in a case registered against them under section 364/34, P.C. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of this revision petition are that on the report lodged by Muhammad Shabir, complainant, a case under sections 364/34, P.C. was registered against five persons including the accused-respondents. After investigation, three accused-persons were given benefit under section 169, Cr.P.C. Only accused-respondents have been sent to face trial. Accused-respondents alongwith remaining three other accused moved their application for bail after arrest before the trial Court on March 12, 1997. This application was allowed to the extent of all other accused-persons except Muhammad Munir vide order dated March 13, 1997. Later on, accused Muhammad Munir moved another application for his release on bail on April 11,1997. He was allowed bail on April 16, 1997. Through the present revision petition, the complainant has challenged the legality of both these orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care. In the offences falling under the Penal Code, the provision for provision for cancellation of bail is not available to the private party to satisfy its I) grudge. Only the State, in such cases, has got the right to seek cancellation of bail allowed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. The bail' has been allowed to the accused-respondents on the ground that all the prosecution's witnesses have-involved all the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. for the offences falling under section 364/34, P.C. However, the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses was found reliable to the extent of two out of five accused-persons. The case of accused-respondents, therefore, was found one of further inquiry. Moreover, as in the light of the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., role attributes to Ashtiaq, accused- respondent was similar to that of co-accused, Waqas and role of accused -respondent, Muhammad Munir was not distinguishable from the role attributed to the other co-accused not challenged in the case. Applying the principle of consistency, the Trial Court found both these accused-respondents entitled to the concession of bail. In my view, the Court has committed no error in law in the light of the above referred facts while allowing bail to the accused-respondents. The case is at the stage of recording of evidence of the prosecution. I have been told that by this time, statement of one prosecution witness has been recorded by the trial Court. It would not, therefore, be proper to withdraw the concession of bail granted to the accused-respondents. There is no allegation that after the bail, the accused-respondents have misused their liberty. However, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move the trial Court for cancellation of their bail, if after examination of the witnesses, it is found that their involvement in a non-bailable offence like 364, P.C. is prima facie established against them. The revision petition, in the circumstances, is without merits which stands dismissed. H.B.T./147/AJ&K Petition dismissed.