' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through the instant petition the complainant-petitioner seeks cancellation of `bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cliakwal, vide order dated 10-12-2010, in case F.I.R. No,243, registered at Police Station Choa Saiden Shah, District Chakwal, on 9-7-2010, for offences under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role that they attacked with their lethal weapons which caused death of Masood, the brother of complainant. It is a broad day light occurrence which was witnessed by the public-at- large. During investigation respondents Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty. The medico-legal report is in line with the contents of F.I.R. And in earlier bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1372-BC of 2010), this Court had made serious observations against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 which were over-sighted by the learned trial Court while granting bail to them. Further contends that the case against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 does not fall within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the instant criminal miscellaneous be allowed, order dated 10-12-2010 be set, aside and bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be cancelled in the interest of justice. Learned D.P.-G.
Adopted the line of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed this criminal miscellaneous and has contended that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been involved in the instant case as a result of wider net. The deceased received only three injuries out of which two injuries are entry wound while Injury No,3 is exit would and both these injuries are attributed to co-accused Sadiq and Abdul Qayyum. Further contends that Muhammad Raseb, a passer-by injured, has not levelled any allegation against respondents Nos.1 and 2 nor the investigation officer could collect any incriminating material against them that Muhammad Raseb was injured from their firing, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly granted bail to respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, the instant petition be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Though respondents Nos.1 and 2 are nominated in the F.I.R. But to decide the instant application, in addition to the facts of the case, the dying declaration of deceased Masood is important who recorded his dying declaration just after the occurrence categorically stating, that co-accused Muhammad Sadiq and Malik Abdul Qayyum fired at him. The statement of deceased is further corroborated with the postmortem report according to which the deceased Masood suffered three firearm injuries out of which two were entry wound and 3rd was exit wound. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, Nasir and Tahir, co-accused are real nephews of accused Muhammad Sadiq, so; their involvement as a result of wider net could not be ruled out.
' The parameters set forth, for the grant of after arrest bail and that of cancellation of bail are entirely different. It is further important to point out here that the doctor who had conducted postmortem of the deceased Masood had appeared as P.W.2., who during examination-in. Chief, has also confirmed the dying declaration made by . Masood deceased. So far as the case of Tahir Mehmood respondent No,2 is concerned, the simple allegation of aerial firing is levelled against him. The above. Facts make the case of respondents Nos.1 and 2 that of further inquiry. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, has rightly granted bail to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. No case for interference is made out, therefore, this application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.