1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---Through this application, the applicant/ complainant has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No, 1/accused, by learned trial Court, in case vide Crime No,98/2007, P.S. Hyderi, Larkana, vide impugned order, dated 29-3-2008.
2. ' Briefly stated, the facts of case are that applicant/complainant lodged report with P.S. Hydri, Larkana, on 13-12-2007, stating therein that he had restrained accused/respondent No,1 not to come in his Muhalla, which annoyed him and he extended him threats of murder. On the fateful day, when the applicant/complainant along with P.Ws.: Akhlaq Ahmed and Badaruddin were standing near T & T office, Larkana, there arrived accused Asif Ali (respondent/accused) on motorcycle, while two other accused, namely, Irfan Bhutto and Farhan Bhutto also arrived there in car. Accused Asif All was said to be armed with repeater, who made straight fire upon applicant/complainant which hit on his left leg, while rest of accused made aerial firing. The P.Ws.
3. Taken applicant complainant to his house; the culprits chased him to his house, where accused/ respondent Asif Ali also made firing at his door.
4. ' The learned trial Court has admitted accused to bail mainly on the ground that there is no allegation of repeating the fire upon complainant by the accused. The injury on the person of injured has been declared as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Mutalahimah which is punishable upto only three years and it is on non-vital part of the body of injured. Further that the investigating agency has not believed the version of complainant by leaving of two co-accused and placing their names in column No,2 of the charge-sheet.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant contended that the trial Court has failed to assess and appreciate the evidence and that the impugned order is preserve, arbitrary, not based on sound and cogent reasons. He further contended that version of complainant is fully stands supported by medical as well as by circumstantial evidence. That the accused has been nominated in F.I.R with specific role of firing at complainant and that there is recovery of crime weapon from accused and recovery of empty cartridges from the place of incident which connect accused with the commission of offence.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
7. ' The learned trial Court has granted bail to the respondent No,1 after tentatively assessing the material available on record. The order of the trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary and perverse. It is now well established principle of law that once the bail is granted exceptional grounds are required for cancellation of same. In the case of Miran Bux v. The State PLD 1989 SC 347 the Honourable Supreme Court has set aside the order of cancellation of bail passed by the High Court on the ground that the pre-arrest bail was granted on merits by the Sessions Court after considering that injury was caused on non-vital part of the body and a case of further enquiry has been made out. The accused is on bail from 29-3-2008. There is no material available on record to show that he has misused the concession of bail.
8. ' In view of above I do not find any merits in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.