' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.--- Heard Messrs Muhammad Arshad Tariq, advocate for the applicant/complainant, Fazal Dad Khan, advocate for the respondent No,1 and Muhammad Bukhsh Awan, State Counsel.
2. The allegation against the respondent No,1 is that on 21-2-2007, at about 2-00 a.m. He, along with co-accused Hameed Hussain, Dil Muhammad and Saeed Akber, entered into the house of the applicant situated in Street No,14, Nai Abadi, Karachi, and robbed her and her son Islam of two mobile telephone sets, one T.V. Set of Philips Company, a set of gold ornaments, a necklace, two bangles of gold, one set of silver ornaments, two earrings and cash of Rs,43,000.
3. The matter was reported to police of Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi, Korangi on the same day and the respondent No,1 was arrested on the same day and a mobile telephone set was allegedly recovered from him. Co-accused Hameed Hussain, Dil Muhammad and Saeed Akber were also arrested within few days of the incident and a mobile telephone set, a T.V. Set, and a silver set of ornaments were recovered from them.
4. On 1-9-2007, when he had remained in custody for more than six months, the trial Court decided to release the respondent No,1 on bail. Thereafter, the remaining accused were also released on bail. However, the applicant has come for cancellation of respondent's bail only.
5. On the complaint of the applicant's counsel that the trial Court was not proceeding with the case notwithstanding the fact that the applicant and her witnesses had been regularly appearing before it, report was called from the trial Court. In its report dated 3-4-2008, the trial Court has reported that in spite of issuance of process repeatedly and framing of the charge six months back the applicant and her witnesses were not appearing for giving evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 contends that the respondent is a poor man having nothing to do with the commission of the present or any other offence. According to him, the applicant has involved him falsely due to some other grudge. The learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the applicant concede that there was nothing to show that the respondent No,1 was involved in any other criminal case.
7. Considerations for the grant and cancellation of bail are quite different. Once a competent Court, in exercise of its discretion, has granted bail, very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for its cancellation. For this view reference may be made to the precedents reported in PLD 1995 SC 34, 1995 SCM R 1249, PLD 1996 SC 241 and 2002 SCM R 1304.
8. It is also an established practice of the Superior Courts not to cancel bail when the trial has commenced or is ready for commencement. For this view reference may be made to the precedents reported in PLD 1989 SC 585, 1989 SCM R 2063, and 1991 SCM R 239. In the case of State v.
Sharif Khan, reported in 1999 M LD 1612 (Peshawar), the High Court, though coming to the conclusion that the bail was granted very unreasonably, declined to cancel it only because the accused had not misused the concession and co-accused had also been released on bail and the trial was ready and a date had been fixed for recording evidence.
9. In the present case, as it is clear from the report of the trial Court, the respondent No,1 has not misused the concession of bail and has been regularly attending the Court but the applicant and her witnesses were avoiding to give evidence. The applicant has also not come for the cancellation of bail of the co-accused.
10. In such circumstances, it will not be proper to cancel the bail of the respondent No,1 and the application is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months under intimation to this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to produce the applicant and her witnesses before the trial Court on the next date of hearing.