Dilawar Khan and Mst. Salara Bibi have moved this petition for cancellation of bail granted to Iqbal Khan accused-respondent in case FIR No, 180 dated 10.9.2008 registered under Sections 302/324/34 PPC at Police Station Tajori, District Lakki Marwat.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is sufficient evidence in the case against the accused. It is a day light occurrence and the FIR is promptly lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the bail of the two accused namely Sahib Khan and Habibullah has been cancelled by this Court vide order dated 22.5.2009. According to learned counsel, the case of the present accusedrespondent is on the same footings with those whose bail has been cancelled by this Court.
3. On the other hand, argument of learned counsel for the accused-respondent is that on merits the case of the accused-respondent is bailable. There is no evidence against the accused- respondent and a cross case exists which has made the case of the accused-respondent as bailable.
4. I have heard arguments and perused the record in the light of which my discussion is as under.
5. The record reveals that after the grant of bail to accused Saadullah, Sahib Khan and Habibullah by the learned Sessions Court, cancellation was moved in this Court and on 22.5.2009 the bail of accused Sahib Khan and Habibullah was cancelled. The record reveals that the present accused- respondent namely Iqbal Khan has the same role as that of Sahib Khan and Habibullah whose bail has been cancelled by this Court. At that time, the alleged cross case FIR No, 181 was available but the same was not believed on this Court by the Honourable Judge. The relevant portion is reproduced below:-- "Two criminal cases are treated to be cross cases when place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the parties are the same. On comparing the case FIR Nos, 180 and 181 in juxtaposition, it emerged that admittedly occurrence in case FIR No, 180 took place at 1530 hours on 10.9.2008, but the occurrence. in case FIR No, 181 took place at 1700 hours on the same date. There is difference of 1(1/2) hours in between the time of two incidents, as recorded in FIR No, 180 and FIR No, 181.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners rightly argued that the second incident recorded in FIR No, 181 may be in retaliation but it is not an incident of cross case to pave ground for respondents-accused to argue that they acted in self defence and hence, they are entitled to bail."
6. As the role assigned to the present accused-respondent is exactly the same as that of accused whose bail has been cancelled by this Court, therefore, 'without going into further merits of the case, I held that the accused-respondent namely Iqbal Khan was not entitled to bail.
7. Hence, the petition-in-hand is accepted and bail already granted to accused-respondent Iqbal Khan is cancelled. He is present in Court. It is ordered that he be taken into custody and sent to Jail and be produced in accordance with law before the relevant Court for further action.