' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---This is a petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.1 to 6 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala vide order dated 6-7-2005 in cross- version of case F.I.R. No.55 of 200o dated 12-6-2005 registered under sections 337-F(iv)/337- F(v)/337-A(i)/342/ 148/149 , P.P.C. At Police Station Havel Koranga, District Khanewal.
2. Precisely the allegation against the present respondents as per cross-version is that on the night falling between 8th and 9th of June, 2005 at about 2-00 a.m. Muhammad Suleman along with Allah Ditta went to his land for watering the fields and in the meanwhile Nazir Ahmad armed with iron rod, Bashir Ahmad armed with Sota, Rao Nawaz and Hashmat armed with Sotas came there and made Lalkara that they would take revenge from Suleman and thereafter Nazir Ahmad inflicted iron rod blow seated on his head and he fell down whereupon Nazir Ahmad given another iron rod blow on his head and rest of the accused gave Sota blows on various parts of his body.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are named in the cross-version and specific role has been attributed to them; that recovery is yet to be effected from the respondents/accused and there is admission of inflicting injuries to Muhammad Suleman on the part of respondents/accused of cross-version and they are not entitled to get extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. That the bail granting order is arbitrary, capricious and against the law and facts of the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Perusal of record reveals that both the parties have set up versions regarding this occurrence and in this way there are two versions before the Investigating Agency one from the side of complainant and other from the side of accused and it is yet to be determined as to which party was actually aggressor.
Learned trial Court while passing a speaking order has granted pre-arrest bail to both the parties.
5. Considerations of 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:--
(a) Bail was granted by a Court having no jurisdiction to grant it;
(b) The accused on bail, commits the same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted;
(c) The accused on bail hampers the investigation;
(d) The accused on bail tampers with the evidence;
(e) The accused absconds after grant of bail;
(t) 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 which badly affect the society at large such as in the cases of heroin smuggling;
(g) Grant of bail to an accused has become a foundation of revenge against the complainant - party, prosecution or the witnesses;
(h) 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.
' The above said principles have been referred to in "Muhammad Ramzan v. Taj Muhammad and another" (1996 PCr.LJ 2006). None of the above conditions apply to the case of respondents. Even otherwise 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 v. Mirza Muhammad Ayub" (1991 M LD 579). No useful purpose shall be served to send the respondents behind the bars.
6. No ground exists for cancellation of bail. This petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.