' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---By filing this petition, petitioner/ complainant has sought cancellation of bail granted by the learned Session Judge, Bhakkar, vide order dated 21-9-2006 to respondents Nos.1 to 5, in case F.I.. No,64, dated 23-6-2006, offences undRer sections, 379, 427, 447, 148, 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Dullaywala, District Bhakkar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that; the bail granting order dated 21-9-2006 is patently and latently illegaly, arbitrary and resulted into a grave mischarge of justice. The learned trial Court while confirming the ad interim pre-arrest bail of respondents Nos.1 to 5 has not taken into consideration the prerequisites of bail before arrest, which is apparent on record. Further states that; the respondents are specifically nominated in F.I.R. And the impugned order is the result of misreading and non-reading of material available on record, therefore, the same is liable to be recalled.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 and learned State counsel opposed this petition and fully supported the impugned order.
4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the record reveals, that the learned trial Court while confirming the bail before arrest of respondents Nos.1 to 5-observed that the Investigating Officer of the case, vide case diary No,35, dated 20-9-2006, deleted the offences under sections, 379, 427 P.P.C. And 14/6/79 (Offences Against Property); offence under section 447 P.P.0 is bailable. It is a settled law that when the main offence is bailable, the other offences would be considered as bailable as the same would sail and sink together with the main offence.
5. Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. Does not command the Court to cancel the bail even when the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and even if the grant of bail is prohibited under section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The principles for grant and cancellation of bail are altogether different.
Strong and exceptions grounds are needed for cancellation of bail.
6. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any of the reasons for cancellation of the bail mentioned above. There is no allegation that respondents No,1 to 5 had misused the concession of bail granted to them by the learned trial Court or some fresh facts or material has been collected by the police during investigation, which may tend to establish or point out guilt of accused. Provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Being not at all punitive in nature, strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation of bail. Once a bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it B must be shown satisfactorily for its cancellation that the discretion exercised by the said Court was either perverse or violative of the fundamental principles qua the bail matters or the same could not have been exercised at all in the circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on Inayat Ullah v. The State and another (1997 PCr.LJ 1366), Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241) and Muzaffar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others (2004 SCM R 231).
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.