' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.---Through this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. The petitioner/complainant seeks cancellation of bail already granted to Muhammad Yousaf, respondent No,1 accused in case F.I.R. No,53 of 2008 dated 25-2-2008 under sections 337/F(V)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Sargodha vide order dated '7-3-2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sargodha. The petitioner had also filed an application for cancellation of bail of respondent-accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who dismissed the same vide order dated 17-3-2008. Hence, this petition to this Court.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent accused was armed with Sota along with 3 others and then gave beating to the complainant/petitioner on 18-7-2008 at about 11-00 a.m. When the petitioner/ complainant went to cast his vote in the polling station due to previous quarrel between him and respondent-accused. He further submitted that middle finger of left hand of the petitioner/complainant had been fractured as is evident from medical report, while the learned Judicial Magistrate granted bail arbitrarily and without lawful excuse. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had also dismissed the application for cancellation of bail of respondent-accused illegally. He submitted that petition may be accepted and after arrest bail already granted to respondent-accused, may be cancelled.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused assisted by learned APG, has submitted that respondent was arrested and then he was allowed after arrest bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate and offence does not fall within prohibitory clause, which is punishable upto 5 years at the most, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge. He also submitted that injury caused on the middle finger of left hand of the complainant/petitioner is infact self-inflicted injury and he was examined after 5 days of the incident, which cast serious doubt on the medical report as well.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Respondent No,1/accused remained in jail for about two weeks and then he was allowed after arrest bail taking into consideration that none of offences fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The respondent-accused was no more required for investigation, while medico-legal report was obtained after 5 days of the incident. No exception can be taken to the orders passed by the learned lower Courts. It is an established principle of law that bail once granted to the accused of an offence should not be cancelled or withdrawn merely in routine and Courts must be slow in cancelling or withdrawing such concession because it gives a right to an accused to retain bail once granted unless it was found that bail granting order was in violation of law of grant of bail on the subject or was perverse or the accused had misused the concession so granted. The instant petition is without merits and is, therefore, dismissed.