' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Through this petition Mst. Balqees Bibi has sought cancellation of post- arrest bail granted to respondent No,2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu vide order, dated 2-3-2007.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Mst. Halima Bibi is that respondent No,2 along with Babal co-accused overpowered Mst.
Humaira daughter of the complainant and carried her to a nearby crop and subjected her to unnatural offence, turn by turn, on pistol point.
' Mst. Halima Bibi allegedly searched for her daughter and succeeded in tracing her out after 2-1/2 hours. Both the accused allegedly threw the person of victim i.e. Mst. Humaira outside the cotton crop after commission of unnatural offence. Occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Muhammad Sharif and Shamshad Jahangir P.Ws., hence the F.I.R. Was registered.
3. After registration of the case, the petitioner was arrested on 26-1-2007. He moved an application for post-arrest bail which was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu vide order, dated 2-3-2007.
4. In support of this application for cancellation of post-arrest bail, learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu while granting bail to respondent No,2 had committed illegality inasmuch as he had failed to appreciate that respondent No,2 who was guilty of heinous offence was duly named in the F.I.R. He has maintained that while lodging the F.I.R. The complainant had made the allegation of rape against the accused, but word "Baad Faili" was malafidely written by the police and case was malafidely registered under section 377, P.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record appended with this petition, I did not see eye to eye with him. While lodging the F.I.R., the complainant had levelled the allegation of sodomy against the respondent No,2 and his co-accused. The case was registered on the basis of written application of the complainant herself and therefore, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word "Baad Faili" instead of word "Zina- bilJabr" was written by police prima facie, is baseless. Prima facie, it appears that after the registration of the case, the complainant took a somersault and twisted the prosecution story by alleging that in fact the offence of rape had been committed with her minor daughter. Besides that during the investigation she had produced an affidavit whereby she had changed her version by exonerating Mst. Balqees Bibi co-accused who according to contents of the. F.I.R. Had performed instrumental role in the said occurrence. A perusal of the impugned order shows that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer had concluded that in fact offence of "Zina-bil-Jabr" was not committed by anyone with alleged victim on the given date. Such finding was recorded on the basis of medical report, negative report of Chemical Examiner as well as report of District Medical Board constituted on the application of Mst. Humaira. It was further opined by the Investigating Officer that neither the respondent No,2 nor his co-accused were armed with any weapon at the time of alleged occurrence. After concluding the investigation said Investigating Officer had held that the petitioner and his co-accused were guilty only to the extent that they were seen by the P.Ws. With the victim who was not a girl of good character. While granting bail learned Additional Sessions Judge, had observed as under:-- "On consideration of arguments and perusal of record it is found that arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner have much force and substance. Case badly requires further probe and inquiry into the guilt of petitioner for the reasons that medical evidence collected by the Investigating Officer negates the allegation of "Zina-bil-Jabr" Investigating Officer has not found the prosecution story as correct. P.Ws. Did not state before the Investigating Officer that they had witnessed the occurrence. Complainant changed her contention. Challan has not so far been submitted. Petitioner has no previous record."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that while granting bail any illegality was committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu. The impugned order has not been found to be illegal or perverse: As observed above originally the complainant had alleged that offence of sodomy was committed by the accused with her daughter but later on she changed her stance and alleged that offence of "Zina-bil-Jabr" was committed with her daughter.
Medico-legal report shows that while examining the alleged victim barring the contusion mark about 0.3 into 1 c.m. On her right breast no other injury or mark of any injury or violence was observed by the doctor on the body of the victim. Similarly it was observed that hymen was not intact. It was further observed as under:-- "No mark of any violence on perineal region. Hymen is not intact old torn. Two fingers pass easily without pain."
7. Besides that as observed above, the co-accused who had allegedly played an instrumental role in this occurrence was exonerated by the complainant herself making credibility hazy. According to the Investigating Officer both the eye-witnesses named in the F.I.R. Had stated that they had not witnessed the occurrence. Keeping all said facts into consideration it can be safely held that while holding the case as one of further inquiry, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any illegality. Even otherwise it is established law that once bail is granted by any Court of competent jurisdiction same cannot be cancelled unless it is shown that bail granting order is perverse and totally illegal. Mere fact that there could be another opinion of the matter than the one formed by the lower Court on the basis of tentative assessment of the evidence, would not be a sufficient ground to cancel the bail if in the light of the facts of the case, it can be found to have qualified the test of calling further inquiry into the guilt or innocence of the accused in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case Sooba Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal and 2 others 2006 SCM R 66.
8. To put in a nutshell, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. Consequently petition in hand is dismissed in limine.