' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Ashraf Asim petitioner- complainant has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 17-9-2009 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No,11436-B of 2009 whereby post-arrest bail was allowed to respondent No, 1 in case F.I.R. No, 136 registered at Police Station Barra Ghar, District Nankana Sahib on 5-4-2009 in respect of offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Prosecutor- General, Punjab appearing for the State and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. According to the F.I.R.. The petitioner had caused the -fatal firearm injury on the left side of the chest of Amjad deceased but during the investigation it had transpired that Amjad deceased had in fact committed suicide and, resultantly, respondent No, 1 was declared innocent and his name was placed in column No, 2 of the Challan. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the opinion of the police -regarding commission of suicide by the deceased was not based, upon sound material and being the sole nominated accused person in the F.I.R. Respondent No, 1 did not deserve the concession of bail. We have gone through the record of investigation of this case and have found that before concluding that Amjad deceased had in fact committed suicide the local police had unearthed the detailed background leading to the death of Amjad deceased. We would not like to comment at this stage upon sufficiency or otherwise of the material collected by the police in that regard but suffice it to observe for the present purposes that the investigation of this case has already been finalized, a challan has been submitted and physical custody of respondent No, 1 is not required by the police at this juncture for the purposes of investigation. The prosecution itself has two versions of the death of Amjad deceased, one advanced by the complainant party and the other concluded by the investigating agency, which divergence had rendered the case against respondent No,1 one of further inquiry. Respondent No, 1 had been admitted to bail almost two years ago and there has never been any allegation against- him regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail. It is trite that considerations for grant of bail and those for its cancellation are entirely different. In these circumstances of this case we have found no occasion for canceling respondent No, l's bail at such a late stage. This petition is, 'therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.