1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- Applicant Nisar Ahmed, who is complainant in F.I.R. Being crime No,7/2006 of Police Station City, Jacobabad, registered under sections 302 and 149, P.P.C., has through this application sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondents Nos.l and 2, namely, Omed Ali and Abdul Lateef by this Court vide order, dated 3-1-2007 passed in Criminal Bail Application No,S-353/2006.
2. ' The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that one Abdul Ghaffar Shaikh, the brother of the present applicant, was allegedly murdered on account of third- degree torture at the hands of some police officers/officials named in the F.I.R. The respondents Nos.l and 2 were not nominated in the F.I.R. But they were subsequently joined on the basis of statements recorded under S.162. Cr.P.C. Of two persons, namely, Aijaz Ahmed and Ahmed Ali during the course of investigation, ' Mr. Nawab Syedul Mukhtar Siddiqi, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that though the names of the applicants were not given by the complainant in the F.I.R. Yet non-mention or omission to mention the names of the accused person responsible for committing the murder of deceased does not make it a fit case for the grant of bail. He further contended that the F.I.R. Is not substantive piece of evidence and it is the investigation through which actual truth has to be ascertained. He further submitted that the applicants have been fully implicated in the case with specific role by the witnesses, namely, Aijaz Ahmed and Ahmed Ali in their statements under S.162, Cr.P.C. Recorded during investigation. According to Mr. Siddiqi, the applicants have obtained bail from this Court on the basis of false representation and have suppressed the material tact that they were implicated by the above-named two witnesses in their 162, Cr.P.C. Statement. He further contended that if the order granting bail is perverse, it does not hold field and the bail granted thereby is liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that the applicants had remained absconders for a considerable period of time and therefore, they were not entitled to concession of bail. Lastly, he submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of non-bailable offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He relied upon the following reported cases in support of his arguments:-
(1) Muhammad Yousuf v. Mst. Iqbal Bibi (198'7 PCr.LJ 1453).
(2) Nadir Ali v. Secretary Regional Transport Authority Faisalabad PLD 2006 Lah.
3. 298.
(3) Raza Mohsin Qazilbash v. Muhammad Usman Malik (1999 SCM R 1794).
(4) Hadayat Ali v. Muhammad Shahbaz (2002 M LD 83).
(5) Qadar Mand v. Muhammad Amroze (1998 SCM R 496).
(6) The State v. Khalid Sharif (2006 SCM R 1265).
(7) Rehmat Ali v. Ashiq (1994 PCr.LJ 1947),
(8) Muhammad Mohsin v. Umar Hayat (1994 PCr.LJ 1887).
(9) Khial Gul v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1054).
4. ' Mr. Asif Ali Soomro, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, submitted that the order, dated 3-1-2007, whereby the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were admitted to bail is based on sound reasoning taking into account the entire factual as well as legal Controversy involved in the matter. Mr. Soomro has urged that if actually the so-called witnesses, namely Aijaz Ahmed and Ahmed Ali had witnessed the incident and had also seen the respondents Nos.1 and 2 committing any torture upon the deceased, then who prevented them to inform such fact to the complainant and why they remained silent for three days. After the registration of the F.I.R. i.e, upto 8-2-2006. So far the ground of suppression of material fact of statements of P.Ws. Aijaz Ahmed and Ahmed Ali urged by Mr. Nawab Syedul Mukhtar Siddiqi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Asif, Ali Abdul Razak Soomro referring to ground No, 10 of his Bail Application No,S-353 of 2006 stated that it is nothing but misstatement on the part of Mr. Siddiqi and that he had not suppressed anything from the Court. He further submitted that the principal accused, namely, Khuda Bux has been admitted to pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 2-3-2007, whereby the entire material available on the record has been fully discussed. Mr. Soomro submitted that for seeking cancellation of bail one has to make out strong and exceptional grounds, which the applicant in this case has failed to bring. He relied upon the reported case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
5. ' Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Korejo, learned State counsel, while opposing the instant application supported the bail grant order, dated 3-1-2007 and further added that the P.Ws. Namely, Muhammad Azeem and Habibullah shown in the F.I.R. Have neither implicated the respondents Nos.1 and 2 nor mentioned the names of witnesses Aijaz Ahmed and Ahmed Ali in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
6. ' In rebuttal, Mr. Nawab Syedul Mukhtar Siddiqi stated that accused Khuda Bux was granted pre- arrest bail by this Court, which has no relevance with the present application, which is for cancellation of order granting post-arrest bail.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material made available before me and have also gone through the case law cited at the bar.
8. ' The bail was granted to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that they were not named in the F.I.R, and that the complainant has specifically mentioned the names of some persons, all police officials and further that the persons named in the F.I.R. Have been let-off by the police and that the witnesses of the incident have also not named the respondents Nos.1 and 2 as accused and allowed the bail relying on the reported case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241), which read as under:--- "Whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail and in such a situation it would be better to keep him on bail than in the jail during the trial."
9. ' I have examined the facts of the case and the order granting bail. It is now well settled law that the bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless the order allowing bail is arbitrary, perverse, capricious and against the material available on record. Furthermore, once the bail is granted then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancelling the same.
10. ' In this matter, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have not suppressed any fact and in para 10 of the grounds in support of their bail application they have disclosed about the statements of witnesses recorded under section 162, Cr.P.C. The order is also not perverse and arbitrary and keeping in view the circumstances of the case the bail was rightly granted and the case of further enquiry has been made out. In the reported case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241), a three-member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding a case of cancellation of bail has held as under:--- "So, we are of the view that where post-arrest bail is granted in such cases, then it should not be cancelled as a matter of course or in routine. Once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancelling the same.
11. Provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Are not punitive. There is no legal compulsion for cancelling bail granted in cases punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. To deprive a person of his freedom is most serious. It is judiciously recognized that unfortunately there is a tendency to involve the innocents with a guilty. Once an innocent is put under arrest, then he has to remain in jail for considerable time. Normally it takes two years to conclude the trial in a murder case. Ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by the mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him but damage to an innocent person caused by arresting him, though ultimately acquitted, would be always beyond repair."
12. ' The case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant has no direct bearing upon the merits of the case and has distinguishable facts.
13. ' In view of the above discussion this application has no merit?. The application was dismissed by short order, dated 2-7-2007 and above are the reasons in support thereof.