2005 PLP 3188 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

The petitioner got a criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No.95 dated 31-3-2004 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 and 196, P.P.C., with Police Station, Margla Islamabad, through Joint Registrar and prayed for cancellation of bail of the respondent granted by this Court vide order dated 22-10-2004, on the ground that prosecution has now collected sufficient incriminating evidence connecting the respondent with the offence charged, including report of the Handwriting Expert which is "Positive" and reported that the Revenue Record on the basis of which sale-deeds mentioned in the F.I.R. were fakely registered, was forged in the handwriting of the respondent. It was contended that on account of fresh evidence collected against the respondent after bail granting order, the same may be cancelled and he may be remitted to judicial custody. The judgments in the case of The State v. Haji Habeer Khan PLD 2005 SC 364; The State/Anti-Narcotics Force through Force Commander A.N.F. Regional Directorate, Rawalpindi v. Malik Amir 2005 YLR 1411; Ansar Mehmood v. Allah Baksh and another 2005 YLR 34 and Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and another 1999 PCr. W 1 were relied in support of the proposition that on account of the improvements in prosecution case, changed circumstances/fresh facts, the bail granted can be cancelled by the same Court.

2. The learned counsel for the State supported the petitioner in spite of the fact that the State was not impleaded as party but the petitioner was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who argued that in absence of misuse of concession of bail, abscondence, tampering with prosecution evidence or hindrance in trial of the case, concession once conferred cannot be recalled. It was further submitted that the trial of the case has commenced whereafter bail should not be cancelled in view of the consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State 1980 SCMR 203; Muhammad Suleman v. Mst. Aziz Begum 1990 SCMR 307 and Mst. Qudrat Bibi v. Muhammad Iqbal and another 2003 SCMR 68, challenging the veracity of Handwriting Expert Report. It was argued that the report was manoeuvered after a long period of one year and the report has to be submitted for test through cross-examination by the respondent without which, the same is of no value.

3. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire record with their assistance. Besides the reasons mentioned in the bail granting order dated 22-10-2004, the report of Handwriting Expert has yet not stood to the test of the cross-examination, statements of the P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C., were recorded after a long time from registration of the case and similarly validity of inculpatory statements of the co-accused recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. will be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence, thus these do not furnish any lawful basis for the relief prayed. The fresh collected evidence shall be taken care, in its true perspective by the trial Court and in view of discretion having once exercised in favour of the respondent, I am not persuaded to cancel the same especially when the trial of the case has commenced, as mandated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Erstwhile judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded on different facts and are of no help to his case because bail granted on medical ground in the case of The State v. Haji Habeer Khan PLD 2005 SC 364 (supra) was cancelled on account of improvement of health of the accused/changed circumstances but no such improvement occurred in the case in hand. Similarly bail cancelled in the other judgments on fresh facts of those cases were not justified in the case in hand, only for the reason that Investigating Officer found the respondent guilty of the offence which is not binding on the Courts. Considerations for grant of bail and those for cancellation, are all together different as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Syed Aman Ullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC

241. Respondent has not misused the concession of bail during 8 month's period. He has not absconded and has not tampered with the prosecution C evidence or hampered the trial of the case, thus, according to my humble view, no case for cancellation of bail is made out.

5. For the reasons noted above, this petition has no merit in, it, hence, the same is dismissed. The trial Court is however, is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of four months. N.H.Q./M-1152/L Petition dismissed.