' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this application, applicant Shah Murad Brohi seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No,1, namely Khair Muhammad by the learned trial Court that is to say the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 3-12-2008 in F.I.R. No,32/2003 of Police Station Hyderi for offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that co-accused Jameel Ahmed was refused bail by this Court vide order dated 14-6-2006, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to be enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court and that the applicant' remained absconder for about one and half year. He therefore, prays for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No, 1.
3. Learned State Counsel opposes this application.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before Court. I find that the respondent No,1 was arrested on 22-5-2004 and then amended charge was framed on 24-2-2005, Tapedar was examined on 12-2-2006 and then only complainant namely Shah Murad Brohi was examined on 16-3-2006 and thereafter there was no progress of trial and consequently the bail was granted to the respondent No,1 by the learned trial Court vide order dated 3-12-2008 only on the ground of hardship for his remaining in custody continuously for a period of more than four and half year and not on merits.
Thus the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant carry no weight. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 3-12-208, whereby bail was granted to respondent No, 1.
' In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that the applicant/complainant Shah Murad has failed to make out the case for cancellation of bail, granted to the respondent No,1,