' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No,1 vide order, dated 14-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in case F.I.R. No,38 dated 27-2-2006 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Daulat Gate, Multan.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Is that respondent No,1 borrowed an amount of Rs,2, 25,000 in January, 2005 from the complainant and promised to return the same after one month. When the petitioner/complainant demanded the borrowed amount, the respondent issued a cheque No,256897 regarding Habib Bank Ltd. Chowk Bazar Branch, Multan on 25-2-2005 in the presence of Quddous Khan and Ghulam Jilani alias Shaukat Hussain. The petitioner/ complainant went to the said Bank and presented the said cheque, which was dishonoured due to non-availability of amount in the bank. The petitioner/complainant again presented the said cheque on 11-6-2005 in the said bank, but the above-mentioned cheque was dishonoured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No,1 is nominated in the F.I.R.; that respondent No,1 could not prove the mala fides and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant/ petitioner and as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to grant bail before arrest to respondent No,1 and reliance in this behalf is placed upon Sakhawat Ali v.
Khalid Mahmood and 7 others PLD 1994 Lah. 377; that the afore-mentioned cheque was issued by respondent No,1 and the same . Was dishonoured and this fact clearly connects the respondent with the commission of offence and as such it was not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to respondent No,1, the reliance in this behalf is placed on Unilever Pakistan Limited through Manager v. Muhammad Rafique and another 2005 YLR 686; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly observed that the offence did not fall in the prohibitory clause as mala fides and ulterior motives could not be proved by the respondent and that the respondent was declared guilty by the police during investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent and submitted that there is delay of eight months in lodging the F.I.R.; that the respondent was not a previous convict; that there is no denial of the fact that a civil suit regarding this controversy is pending before the Civil Court and it is yet to be seen whether the cheque in question was issued with criminal intention to deceive the complainant/petitioner and reliance in this behalf is placed upon Major Anwar-ul-Haq v. The State PLD 2005 Lah. 607; Haq Nawaz Khan v. The State 2006 YLR 50; that the offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the respondent has not misused the concession of bail; that the challan has been submitted in the Court and the trial has commenced and that in view of these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quite justified in releasing the respondent on bail and no legitimate exception can be taken to it.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the record.
6. By now it is well-settled that considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. Guiding principles for cancellation of bail have been referred to in Muhammad Ramzan v. Taj Muhammad and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2006; Mst. Sharifan v. Manzoor Hussain 2005 PCr.LJ 1008;, which are as under:--
(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 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 which badly affect the society at large such as in the case of heroin smuggling; (viii)granting of bail to an accused has become a foundation of revenge against complainant party, prosecution or the witnesses;
(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 S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
' 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 Ayoub 1991 MLD 579 and Raja Zahoor Ahmad v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 1713.
7. There is delay of eight months in lodging the F.I.R. The respondent is not a previous convict. There is no proof on the file to show that the respondent has misused the concession of bail or there is any likelihood of the abscondence of the respondent. The offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause. It is an admitted fact that there is a civil litigation between the respondent and the complainant/petitioner and it is yet to be seen whether the disputed cheque was issued with criminal intention to deceive the complainant/petitioner. Challan has been submitted in the Court and the trial has commenced.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that bail has been granted to respondent No,1 Falah-ud-Din for valid reasons and it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail as strong and exceptional grounds are needed to get it cancelled which are not available and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly exercised jurisdiction in the matter of grant of bail to respondent No, 1 . Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.