' MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---Having felt aggrieved from the impugned order dated 24-9-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.1.Khan whereby the accused- respondents Nos.1 to 3 were granted bail, the complainant-petitioner Shah Jehan has filed the instant petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused-respondents in case F.I.R. No,258 dated 11-9-2010 registered under sections 324/118/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, District D.I.
Khan.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant-petitioner lodged the report in the shape of murasila to the effect that on 11-9-2010 at 0900 hours he along with his cousin Muhammad Tariq started from their house and were proceeding to village Jewan for Eid greetings with their friends. When reached Kacha road near brick kiln, Rasheed, Hamidullah, Qaisar, Rafique and Zarif emerged there duly armed with firearms and started firing at them. With the firing of Rafique, the complainant got hit on his right shoulder whereas his companion Muhammad Tariq escaped unhurt. Motive for the occurrence was disclosed to be dispute over womenfolk.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he will press the instant petition to the extent of accused-respondent Rafique only and will not press the same to the extent of other two accused-respondents. He contended that though there is delay in lodging the report but the same has been properly explained. He further contended that the accused-respondent Rafique is directly charged in the F.I.R. For causing injury to the victim-complainant and his version is supported by P.W. Muhammad Tariq, site plan and medical evidence and at this stage, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2003 M LD 72 Peshawar. contended that though the accused-respondent is directly charged in the F.I.R. But there is sufficient delay in lodging the report which has not been explained. He went on to argue that in the F.I.R., the accused-respondent has been shown to be armed with firearm whereas in the site plan prepared at the pointation of P.W. Tariq, Kalashnikov has been attributed to the accused- respondent but from the spot, no empty of the Kalashnikov has been recovered but the empty of .30 bore has been recovered which makes the case of accused-respondent one of further inquiry.
He further contended that five accused are charged for causing single injury to the complainant which at this stage, cannot be attributed to accused-respondent Rafique, therefore, he was rightly released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He placed reliance on 2009 SCM R 1202.
5. I gave my anxious consideration to the above arguments and perused the materials available before me minutely.
6. Admittedly, there is delay of more than two hours in lodging the report lodged in the Hospital which has not properly been explained. The contents of the report clearly indicate that the accused including accused-respondent Rafique were armed with firearms but with no specification of the weapons carried by each accused, however, in the site plan prepared at the ponitation of P.W.
Tariq, he has attributed Kalashnikov to accused-respondent Rafique with which he fired at the complainant but from the spot, the I.O. Did not recover any empty of the Kalashnikov whereas an empty of .30 bore has been recovered which requires further probe into the matter because it is a case of indiscriminate firing by five accused. All these factors when taken into consideration tentatively, make the case of accused-respondent one of further, inquiry arguable for the purpose of bail and he was rightly released on bail.
7. It has been repeatedly held by the superior Courts in chain of authorities that once bail has been granted by a competent court of law, strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancelling the same. In this respect, reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar and another 2009 SCM R 1202.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, I have been led to the conclusion that the order of bail passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is neither perverse nor illegal warranting interference by this court and hence, the bail cancellation application being without any substance is hereby dismissed.