' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail cancellation petition, submits that the respondent is a man of desperate character who is already involved in about twelve cases of heinous nature; that it was not a case of bail before arrest; that the affidavit was obtained by the respondent from witness Muhammad Ramzan under due pressure and the said Ramzan is present in Court; that the considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are altogether different; that the respondent was named in the F.I.R.; that the names of the two witnesses have been mentioned in the F.I.R. And that it is a fit case of bail cancellation of the respondent.
2. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had abetted his co-accused to commit the murder of the deceased in case he does not deliver possession and that the allegation of getting the possession back from the party to whom he had already sold the property, does not appeal to common sense.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. I have myself gone through the police file. The case in hand was registered on 23-10-2004. In the F.I.R. Recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. Two witnesses of abetment have been mentioned as Jan Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan. In fact after closure of Zimini No,8 dated 19-11-2004, there is an application on behalf of complainant Muhammad Jahangir that both the above witnesses were won over and they did not want to give evidence in that regard and he had introduced two different persons as witnesses of the abetment. Further more, mere involvement of the respondent in some other criminal cases cannot be made basis for cancellation of his bail in the present case.
Even otherwise, the grounds for the grant and for cancellation of bail are altogether different because strong grounds are required to cancel a bail. In the afore-referred circumstances, I am of the prima facie view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of cancellation of a bail of the respondent. Resultantly, this petition, having no merit, is hereby dismissed.