' IQBAL HEMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos.2 to 4 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, vide order dated 27-8-2009 in F.I.R.
No,327/2009 dated 3-8-2009 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 has joint business with respondents Nos.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 mala fide 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 Nos.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 mala fide 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 23-8-2009; 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 if learned trial court, charge has been frame 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 v. Abdul Qahar and another 2003 M LD 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 exception 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 the misused the concession of bail or he hurled any threat on the complainant/petitioner Reliance is placed on Munir Ahmad Saifi v.
Muhammad Javaid and 6 others (2007 PCr.LJ 108). In the case of Aurangzeb v. Shakeel Ahmad and another 2008 PCr.LJ 1565 it has been held that Court should be reluctant to cancel the bail, especially after A the commencement of the trial.
7. For the reasons noted above, this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Is dismissed.