' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has sought cancellation of post- arrest bail allowed to respondents Nos. 1 to 6 by the different Courts in case F.I.R. No,338 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sialkot on 20-10-2005 in respect of offences under sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C.
2. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press this petition to the extent of Muhammad Ashraf, ExPatwari, respondent No,2, Amjad Pervez, respondent No,3 and Tanveer Ahmad respondent No,6 as there is no order for grant of bail to these accused on the file, but they are appearing before the learned trial Court having been marked on bail. In this view of the matter this petition is dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of above said respondent. The petitioner can, however, move for cancellation of their bail before the learned trial Court in the first instance, if so desired which will be decided on its own merits.
3. While going through the file it has come to the notice of this Court that the bail before arrest of Ehsan respondent No,5 and Tanveer Ahmad respondent No,6 had been disallowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereas respondents Nos.1 and 4 were allowed the said concession vide consolidated orders, dated 28-10-2006 and subsequently Ehsan Afzal respondent No,5 was allowed post-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 24-1-2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 11-B of 2007. It is also significant to note that the petitioner had moved for cancellation of bail allowed to Ehsan Afzal respondent No,5 before this Court but his request in that respect had also been turned down by this Court vide order, dated 31-1-2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 746-CB of 2007.
4. I have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any documents to establish that whether the petitioner had challenged the above said order, dated 31-1-2007 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan or not but he remained unable to point out any document or information in this regard, therefore, the petitioner cannot move for cancellation of bail twice to his extent before this Court or to pray for review of earlier order passed in this regard.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequently offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was added to the F.I.R. And the respondents have not applied for bail against the said offence. He further contends that after their release on bail the respondents are threatening the petitioner and other witnesses with dire consequences. The petitioner had also sworn an affidavit in this regard before the learned trial Court. The learned counsel further maintains that if the bails of the respondents are not cancelled they will tamper with the prosecution evidence.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the documents appended with this petition and noticed that all the offences with which the respondents have been charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And this Court vide order, dated 24-1- 2007 had accepted application for post-arrest bail through Criminal Miscellaneous No,11-B of 2007 after considering all the facts of the case and addition and deletion of any evidence during the investigation on the same evidence is not a ground for cancellation of bail. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after their release on bail the respondents had issued threats to the petitioner and his witnesses with dire consequences is only supported by affidavit. It has been observed in this context that levelling of such allegation by the complainant in the application for cancellation of bail has become a routine, therefore, this submission cannot be made a basis for cancellation of respondents' bail unless the same is supported by the cogent evidence. The respondents are facing agony of the trial for the last four years, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. However, the learned trial Court is directed to ensure conclusion of the trial of this case within three months from the passage of this order and shall submit report in this regard to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court who shall convey this direction to the learned trial Court telephonically for compliance.