1. The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to Respondents Nos, 1 & 2 by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 23.4.2003 in case FIR No, 21 dated 22.4.2003 registered under Sections 406 and 506(B) PPC at P.S. Danewal Tehsil & District Vehari.
2. 2.Briefly stated the contents of the FIR are that the complainant entrusted the respondents with cash amounting to Rs, 6,00,000/- for getting favourable results in Election 2002 of consistency of Vehari. The respondents have committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the said amount.
3. The respondents allegedly armed with pistol have also threatened the complainant to kill him.
4. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents were enlarged on bail due to compromise between the parties in which the respondents made their statements and. confessed their guilt and promised to pay back the amount received from the complainant but after concession of bail the respondents have deviated from their undertaking and that the respondents have threatened the petitioner of dire consequences.
5. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. The Superior Courts have laid down guiding principles for the subordinate Courts to cancel bail granted to an accused if-- (i)bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it; (ii)the accused on bail commits the same offence for which he is being tried or has. been convicted; (iii)the accused on bail hampers the investigation; (iv)the accused on bail tampers with the evidence; (v)the accused absconds after grant of bail; (vi)the accused got bail on the basis of false averments regarding his age or illness etc.; (vii)the accused was implicated as the principal offender in several cases badly affect the society at large such as in the cases of heroin smuggling; (viii)granting of bail to an accused has become a foundation of revenge against the complainant party, prosecution or the witnesses; and
(ix) bail order of the subordinate Court was devoid of reasoning while granting bail and facts of case were fully implicating the accused for attracting Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
6. The above-said principles have been referred to in Muhammad Ramzan vs. Taj Muhammad and another (1996 PCr.LJ 2006). Strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation of bail when bail is granted by a competent Court. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Bashir Ahmad Mira Muhammad Ayub (PLJ 1991 Cr.C. 64).
7. 6.In the instant petition, no such ground has been mentioned and proved by cogent reasons. There is no evidence that the respondents have put any pressure on the complainant. There is no further proof on file to show that the respondents have misused the concession of bail or there is any likelihood of the abscondence of the respondents. Challan has been submitted and trial has commenced. There appears no illegality in the order of the learned trial Magistrate and the exercise of discretion is in accordance with law.
8. 7.In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed.