1. MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J -This application for cancellation of bail has been tiled by complainant Asimullah: ' Facts giving rise for filing of this application for cancellation of bail are that F.I.R. No,29 of 2009 was lodged under section 337-ADF of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with. section 34, P.P.C. on 5-7- 2009 with Police Station Muslim Bagh. Allegations levelled against accused/respondents in the are that on 26-6-2009 at about 8-00 p.m. younger brother of complainant namely Muhammad Khalid was coming towards his house situated at Shin Kharh, where some persons were hidden, out of those one Abdul Bari Mardanzai was having stick in his hand, while two other sons of Abdul Bari names-whereof were not known by the complainant were duly armed with weapons, besides- Atta Muhammad, Din Muhammad and Raz Muhammad also attacked upon brother of complainant, who sustained head injury. Abdul Bari and Atta Muhammad hit the victim on waist and Raz Muhammad hit the victim on his hands, and Raz Muhammad hit brother of complainant with stone on his liver. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that in consequence of said incident.victim sustained grievous injuries and one Noon Gul was stated to be eye-witness. Motive behind the incident was claimed to be civil dispute between the parties. At strength of this report F.I.R. was lodged and accused/respondents were arrested. The statements of P. Ws. were recorded by police and challan of the case was submitted before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Muslim Bagh to face trial under section 337-ADF Q&D R/W 34, P.P.C.
2. ' After arrest of accused/respondents, Application No,21 of 2009 for grant of bail was moved before learned Judicial Magistrate, Muslim Bagh, which was allowed vide order dated 22-7-2009.
3. Applicant feeling dissatisfied with the bail granting order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Muslim Bagh, filed application for cancellation of bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Killa Saifullah which was dismissed vide order dated 12-8-2009, hence this application for cancellation of bail on the same grounds which.pressed into service` before learned Additional Sessions Judge, has been filed before this court.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Sattar Kakar learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant contended that the accused persons have been. nominated with specific role in the Learned counsel further contended that accused/respondents are misusing the concession of bail. Third submission was that injuries sustained by victim are serious in nature and fall under the definition of Shajjah-i-Mudiha. "The punishment for such injury may extend 5 years and shall also liable to Arsh". Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant further contended that while granting bail learned .Judicial Magistrate did not provide opportunity of hearing, therefore, bail was illegally granted. Lastly it was contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not take into account the nature of offence and non-entitlement of bail to respondents.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Ahad Kakar Advocate for respondents submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged with unexplained delay of more than 7 days. Secondly it was contended that statements of P.Ws. were recorded at a belated stage. He further argued that without prejudice above grounds prosecution has failed to make out a case disentitling accused/ respondents for grant of bail. Even otherwise case against 'accused does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause. According to the learned counsel for the respondents both orders have been passed by competent forum as such are unexceptionable.
6. ' Mr. Abdullah Kurd Advocate for State supported the impugned orders and submitted that accused/respondents have been granted bail by competent court of law, therefore, for cancellation of such order extra ordinary circumstances are required, which are missing in this case.
7. ' I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and with their help perused available record.
8. 'In F.I.R. it has been stated by the SHO that written application for lodging of F.I.R. has been moved on 26-6-2009 but victim was not produced in police station.on the day of incident, therefore, complainant was asked to produce medical certificate, which according to police report was produced on 8-10-2009. So this delay apparently is attributable to prosecution and. the statements of P.Ws. were recorded a day after lodging of F.I.R.
9. ' First ground pressed into service by learned counsel of applicant is of no avail, as the F.I.R. has been lodged with inordinate and considerable delay, so the possibility of lodging of F.I.R. after consultation and deliberation cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances mere nomination of someone in F.I.R./complaint does, not disentitle an accused to the relief of bail, if otherwise he/they is/are found entitled for such concession. Second ground also does not justify. cancellation, as there is no documentary proof to that effect. There is no complaint to any competent forum disclosing any such grievance. Affidavits so filed apparently seem an attempt to justify cancellation, which in my considered opinion are not sufficient to warrant cancellation. Third submission of learned counsel is also of no help as record reveals that State has been heard, therefore, this grievance stands redressed.
10. ' Perusal of record reflects that learned Judicial .Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction vested in him within the framework of law, bail has been granted on merit. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after due application of mind, correctly concluded that no case for cancellation has been made Out. Even otherwise once bail is granted by a competent'court then strong and exceptional circumstances are required for cancellation of bail. All ingredients requiring cancellation of bail are lacking and missing in present case. I see no reason to interfere with legal orders passed by courts below, hence application is dismissed.
11. ' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which are not to influence merits of the case.