1. ' AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.---Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. ' The. Respondent/accused was admitted to bail in this bail application vide order, dated 8th November, 2006 on the basis of the deposition of Mst. Shahana recorded by the trial Court, and further observation was recorded for not expressing any observation on the evidence recorded by the trial Court, which was likely to effect the final decision of the learned trial Court.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the extrajudicial confessional statement allegedly made by the accused/respondent No.1 before a police official and before P.W. Shabbir- ul-Hassan.
4. ' The question to be resolved by the trial Court would be as to whether, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the extra-judicial confessional statement of the accused/respondent No.1 would suffice for arriving at a definite conclusion of the offence having been committed at his hands.
5. It is a settled principle of law that once an accused is admitted to bail, then very strong circumstances need for the purpose of cancellation, of such order of grant of bail, and that the same cannot be directed on the basis of evidence which is yet to be said properly appraised by the trial Court itself at the conclusion of the trial.
6. ' There is no reason for directing to cancel the bail granted to accused/respondent No.1 and therefore, this criminal miscellaneous application is hereby dismissed in limine together with the listed application; however, the trial Court shall be at liberty to direct for cancellation of bail of the accused as and when strong evidence comes on the record of the case, for all such purposes as directed under, the settled principles of law, relevant, thereto.