' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---This single order will dispose of BCA Nos. 149 and 150 of 2010, as both these petitions have arisen out of one and same case F.I.R.No,457 dated 2-8-2008 of police station Tank registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the respondents are that they in furtherance of common object of their co-accused who have been released on bail had committed the murder of Sher Zaman, son of the complainant Mst. Bakhtawarey wife of Gul Zaman with fire arms.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are directly charged for committing the murder of the deceased in a broad-daylight duly witnessed by Ghulam, the recovery of eight empties from the spot and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that thirteen persons are charged in the case. Initially, the complainant has charged four persons for committing the crime, but later on father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant charged another set of seven accused.
According to him, the eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has also resiled from the statement, therefore, being a case of further inquiry, the respondents were entitled to bail.
5. I have gone through the record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record reveals that the occurrence took place at about 0230 hours while its report was lodged at about 0840 hours and thus there is delay of six hours and ten minutes in making the first report which has not been plausibly explained. The record further reveals that initially six persons were charged for committing the offence but lateron more persons were included in the list of accused by father of the deceased who is husband of the complainant. The statement of eye- witness Ghulam Sarwar discloses that he was not available on the spot. The record also discloses that charge has been framed and trial commenced. In such circumstances, bail cannot be cancelled normally in order to avoid any adverse comments which is likely to effect trial. Reference may be made to 2004 SCM R 231. Otherwise too, strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancellation of bail which are lacking here.
7. Consequently, I find no substance in either of the two bail cancellation applications which are accordingly dismissed.