The complainant in case F.I.R. No, 343 Police Station, Karak has moved separate Bail Cancellation Applications against the accused/ respondents by impugning two different bail granting orders dated 21.12.2010 and 24.11.2010 by alleging that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karak while making the order of release of accused on bail has acted illegally, unlawfully and capriciously as the reasons given by the learned Judge in the circumstances of the case are not sufficient to release the accused in a case where a person has lost his life and thereby requested for recall of the impugned orders.
2. As against that the learned counsel for the accused/ respondents submitted that it was a cross case of even dated F.I.R. No, 342 registered under Sections 302/324/34 PPC, the place of occurrence and time of occurrence is the same in both the cases. Both the parties reached the hospital alongwith the bodies of their victims almost at the same time, as is established from the contents of the F.I.R. So, the bail granting order is quite in accordance with the law as the refusal of both the cases at this stage would not establish the fact that who was the assailant and who acted in defence; the only course left for the lower Court was to release the accused/petitioner on bail in both the cases. The petitioner himself an accused in the above referred cross case was also released on bail on this ground. So the present application being meritless is liable to dismissal.
Placed reliance on the cases of Shoaib Mehmood Butt Vs. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1845) and The State/Anti-Narcotic through Director-General Vs. Rafiq Ahmad Channa (2010 SCM R- 580).
3. The learned Addl. AG present in Court also supported the stance of the accused/respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the parties and learned AAG for the State were heard and record of the case was perused.
My this single judgment will dispose of both the Cr. Misc. application.
5. The perusal of the record would establish the fact that an occurrence took place between the parties wherein two persons lost their lives, one on each side. The perusal of the record of both the cases would further establish the fact that time of occurrence and place of occurrence are the same. The petitioner was also one of the accused in case F.I.R. No, 342 who was released on bail on the same ground of cross-version and the accused/respondent in the present case have also been released on the same grounds as the Courts considering their bail applications were unable to determine about the assailing party, at such an initial stage of the case, Such a situation makes the case of both the parties, as that of further inquiry and on the same ground both the parties have been dealt with by the Courts accordingly. It is an established and settled law of the land that bail in the cases of counter versions, one given by the complainant and the other by the opposite party, is normally granted on the ground of further enquiry as provided in Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
Reliance in this regard could be placed on the cases of Shoaib Mehmood Butt and Rafique Ahmad Channa (supra).
6. The law regulating the cancellation/recall of bail granting order has also been settled by the verdicts given by the superior Courts of the land. Considerations for grant. and cancellation of bail are entirely different from each other. Once bail is granted to an accused, then very strong and cogent grounds are required to recall the bail granting order like the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect or the accused who was granted bail has misused the concession of bail or interferes in the course of investigation or attempts to tamper with the prosecution evidence or threatens the witnesses or is indulged in the similar activities. Any one or more such grounds if established on the record, then the Court without any hesitation can recall the concession of bail extended to the accused. The Court considering the bail cancellation application can also consider any other ground which in the opinion of the Court is sufficient for cancellation of bail in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The complainant in the present case has failed to point out any of the above said grounds. Hence both the cancellation petitions being merit less are hereby dismissed as such.