' Through this petition Ghulam Mustafa petitioner-complainant has called in question the order, dated 6-12-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianw li whereby respondent No,1 was admitted to pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,256 registered at Police Station Qamar Mushani, District Mianwali on 6-11-2004 for offences under sections 324/337-F(iii), P.P.C.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 had been nominated in the F.I.R. And a specific role had been attributed to him therein regarding repeatedly firing at the injured victim namely Fayyaz Khan; during the investigation respondent No,1 had been found to be guilty; an offence under section 324, P.P.C. Attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.; the approach adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in his order dated 6-12-2004 was nothing but conjectural; the all important consideration regarding mala fide implication of respondent No,1 in the case in hand had not been properly adverted to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in the said order, the plea of self-defence advanced by respondent No,1 admitted respondent No, l's presence and participation in the alleged occurrence and, thus, sufficient material was available on the record establishing his involvement in the alleged offence and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali was not justified in admitting respondent No,1 to pre-arrest bail. As against that the learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported the above mentioned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 6-12-2004 and has maintained that no, allegation has been levelled in the present petition regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by respondent No,
1. The learned counsel for the State has pointed out that after completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court on 19-12-2004 and in the said challan respondent No,1 has been opined to be guilty.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been observed by me that according to the F.I.R. Itself respondent No,1 had fired at the victim outside respondent No, 1 's own house in the small hours of, the morning. The case diary dated 3-12-2004 recorded by the D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Eisa Khel shows that the said D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Had found that the complainant party's version regarding the alleged motive as well as the main occurrence was found to be false and according to the D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Respondent No,1 had acted in exercise of his right of private defence as the alleged victim had entered the house of respondent No,1 in the small hours of the morning in furtherance of an illicit liaison with respondent No, l's wife. The tenor of the order, dated 6-12-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali shows that prima facie the complainant party's version of the alleged incident was not found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali to be bona fide. In these circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali had deemed it proper to admit respondent No,1 to pre-arrest bail.
4. It is trite that considerations for grant of bail and those for its cancellation are entirely different.
No argument has been addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding any misuse or abuse of concession of bail by respondent No,
1. Admittedly the challan of this case has already been submitted before the learned trial Court on 19-12-2004 after completion of the investigation. The Police Officer present with the record has informed the Court that the weapon of offence has already been recovered from the possession of respondent No,1 and his arrest is no longer required by the police in connection with the investigation. It is settled law that bail of an accused person cannot be cancelled merely for wreaking vengeance of the complainant party. Even otherwise this Court is generally slow in cancelling an accused person's bail after completion of investigation and submission of the challan.
5. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found by this Court for interference with the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.