' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Asmatullah petitioner/complainant has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29-11-2010 passed by the honourable Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby respondent No. 2 namely Nasir had been admitted to post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 590 registered at Police Station Daudzai, District Peshawar on 9-10- 2006 in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P. P. C .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the necessary challan had already been submitted before the trial court and, thus, the direction issued in that regard by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar earlier on had been substantially complied with and, therefore, the Honourable Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar was not justified in admitting respondent No. 2 to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay alone. He has also argued that respondent No.2 had been nominated in the F.I.R. As one of the culprits who had committed the alleged murder; the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully incriminating the said respondent; respondent No.2 had remained a proclaimed offender for a period of more than three years; and in this view of the matter it was even otherwise not a fit case for enlarging the said respondent on bail. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State has supported the petitioner but he has conceded that the State has not sought cancellation of respondent No.2's bail through any independent petition. He has further conceded that the trial of respondent No.2 has not made any significant progress so far and, thus, the direction issued by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar on 23-7-2010 regarding conclusion of the trial within the next three months has not yet been complied with. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that the version of the incident advanced by the petitioner/complainant through his F.I.R. Is materially different from the version of the local police which had registered a separate F.I.R. In respect of the same incident. He has gone on to submit that the injured police official namely Mukamil Shah, F.C. Has not incriminated the petitioner in any manner in his deposition made before the trial Court in connection with the criminal case registered by the local police regarding the same incident. He has further maintained that respondent No.2 has not misused the concession of bail and, therefore, there is no occasion for cancellation his bail by this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance we have straightaway observed that on 23-7-2010 the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar had issued a direction that the Challan in this case ought to be submitted before the trial Court within the next fortnight and the trial of respondent No.2 must conclude within the next three months. It is not disputed that so far only two formal witnesses have got their statements recorded before the trial Court and no significant progress has been made in the trial till date. In this view of the matter the above mentioned direction issued by the Peshawar High Court on 23-7-2010 had substantially remained un-complied with when the Honourable Chief Justice of that Court was pleased to admit respondent No. 2 to post-arrest bail.
4. A perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that only a general and collective allegation had been levelled against respondent No. 2 and his two co-accused regarding firing at Tasleem Khan deceased and no specific injury had been attributed to respondent No.2. Admittedly no weapon had been recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2 during the investigation of this case. The Post- mortem Examination Report in respect of the deceased shows that the deceased had received only one fire-shot and that solitary fire-shot stands attributed by the prosecution to three accused persons including respondent No.2. It is, thus, not clear at this stage as to whether any injury had been caused, by the said respondent to the deceased or not. The F.I.R. Itself refers to pending litigation between the parties and, therefore, a possibility of spreading the net wide by the complainant party so as to falsely entangle respondent No.2 is a possibility which cannot safely be- ruled out of consideration at this stage. It is important to mention here that in respect of the same occurrence the local police had also registered another F.I.R. And we have been informed that the police officer getting injured in the same incident had not incriminated respondent No.2 in his deposition made before the trial Court in connection with that case. For all these reasons the case against respondent No.2 surely called for further inquiry into his guilt and, thus, we have even otherwise not felt persuaded to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in the matter by the Honourable Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar.
5. Apart from what has been discussed above it is trite that considerations for grant of bail and, those for its cancellation are entirely different. No allegation has been levelled against respondent No.2 regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail granted to him by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and, therefore, particularly in the background of the factors mentioned above, we have found no occasion for canceling his bail.
6. For what has been discussed above this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.