The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to Respondents No, 2 to 4 by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, vide order dated 27.08.2009 in F.I.R No, 327/2009 dated 03.08.2009 registered at Police Station City Pakpattan, District Pakpattan, under Section 406, P.P.C. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joint business with Respondents No, 2 to 4 in the name and style of "Shama Jewellers" and on the death of Imran son of Respondent No, 2, the accused persons have misappropriated the amount of the petitioner amounting to Rs, 6,50,000/-; that the accused persons are equally responsible to return the amount to the petitioner; that recovery is yet to be effected from them. He further submits that the respondents did not point out any malafide or ulterior motive with the petitioner and there is no reason to involve the accused falsely in this case.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No, 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner is running a shop with the name and style of "Stylish Jewellers" and it is not believable that he put his money with the deceased Imran; which shows the malafide on the part of the complainant; that all the respondents are running their independent business; that the respondents have been involved merely on the basis of suspicion; that the challan has been submitted and the trial has commenced.
4. Learned Addl. Prosecutor. General, Punjab states that the accused persons have been found guilty of the offence vide Zimni No, 7 dated 23.08.2009; that the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused persons have their own independent business.
The respondents have been nominated on the basis of suspicion; therefore, false involvement of the respondents cannot be ruled out. The challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court, charge has been framed on 20.11.2009 and trial is fixed for prosecution evidence and at this stage, any finding by this Court for or against the impugned order is not advisable. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal and another Vs. Abdul Qahar and another (2003 MID 87). The practice of the superior Courts has continuously been that once a bail is granted, it can only be cancelled or re-called on very strong and exceptional reasons i,e, misuse of concession of bail; bail order passed in violation of basic law; the accused has repeated the offence; or there is evidence on record that the respondents have hampered the progress of the trial. None of these reasons are found on record in this case. There is no allegation against the respondents that they misused the concession of bail or he hurled any threat on the complainant/petitioner. Reliance is placed on Munir Ahmed Saifi Vs. Muhammad Javaid and 6 others (2007 P Crl.L.J. 108). In the case of Aurangzeb Vs. Shakeel Ahmad and another (2008 PCr.LJ 1565), it has been held that Court should be reluctant to cancel the bail, especially after the commencement of the trial."
7. For the reasons noted above, this application under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. is dismissed,