Having been involved in a case registered vide FIR No, 649 dated 4.11.2003 under Sections 324/34 PPC at Police Station Sheikh Maltoon Township, Mardan, the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Mardan. His application was allowed and he was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 19.12.2003. The complainant being not satisfied with the bail granting order, moved an application for cancellation of his bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Mardan. The said application was accepted and the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 6.2.2004, Now the accused-petitioner has approached this Court for bail through the application in hand.
2. On 4.11.2003 at 1515 hours Kifayat complainant in the Casualty of Civil Hospital Mardan reported that he was residing in the house of Inhar son of Muhammad as his tenant. Sawar Khan nephew of Inhar was demanding him to vacate the house but the owner of the house directed him not to vacate the house without his permission. On the day of occurrence, Sawar Khan and Perviaz duly armed came to his house and when he (complainant) alongwith his maternal uncle Islam Gul came out of their house, the accused started altercation with them and fired at them with which the complainant and Islam Gul were hit and injured.
3. I have heard the arguments of M/s Muhammad Saleem Toru, the learned 'counsel representing the accused-petitioner, Assad Kamal, the learned counsel representing the complainant and Muhammad Saeed Khan, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and perused the record.
4. The bail granting order dated 19.12.2003 was a detailed order and the learned Judicial Magistrate Mardan had appreciated that neither any weapon of offence was mentioned in the FIR nor any empty was recovered from the spot nor the weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The medico-legal report also shows that the complainant received injury at his shoulder whereas Islam Gul was hit on his leg i,e, the injury was not on the vital part of his body and each one of them had received a single fire shot. After taking into consideration all the above mentioned facts, the learned Judicial Magistrate had rightly reached at the conclusion that the case of the accused-petitioner was that of further inquiry, hence he was directed to be released on bail.
5. It is by now settled that once the Court of competent jurisdiction passes bail order, the bail can be cancelled/withdrawn on very strong and exceptional grounds. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Court in a number of judgments/orders have held that bail can be cancelled where a person on bail has either tried to tamper with the evidence or commits acts of violence against the prosecution witnesses or repeats the offence or hampers or creates obstacle in the way of investigation or the bail granting order is either perverse fanciful or arbitrary and the same has been procured by practicing fraud or misrepresentation.
6. In the case in hand, none of the above mentioned grounds for cancellation of bail was available, yet the learned Sessions Judge ignoring the clear-cut dictums of the Superior Courts, cancelled the bail granted to the accused-petitioner on proper grounds duly recognized by law.
7. Since the case of the accused-petitioner is that of further inquiry, therefore, I allow the application in hand and direct that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/. (rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Mardan who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.