1. ' S. ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---Learned counsel for the respondents states that the presence of the complainant in person is not a requirement to dispose' of an application for cancellation of bail.
2. The grounds on which this application is moved are very much there in the same. Learned counsel further pointed out that the cancellation of bail is sought on no grounds recognized by the law in that regard. The order as to grant of bail is based on the ground of further inquiry in the terms whether section 34, P.P.C. Is applicable in the case and the same is decidable after evidence has come on record and the question of involvement and criminal accountability against the matter of murder in question is to be adjudicated upon by the court on merits but at tentative stage where the matter of bail is considered favourably to the respondents the ground of further inquiry is sufficient to entail the relief of bail. The respondents who have been granted bail are women-folk out of whom one is old and the other one who is young is a married woman having a suckling -a- vis appear to be pregnant as well and where there appears no direct or indirect tangible role in the allegation as to the commission of the crime against any such accused, the exercise of discretion in favour of grant of bail is not only justified but becomes duty to the service of justice. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited the case of Muhammad Akram v. Zahid Iqbal and others reported in 2008 SCM R 1715 (1717), in paragraph 5 whereof it is stated that "in a case of cancellation of bail, the court has to see whether the bail order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect rest and has resulted in miscarriage of justice." There is no such case in the instant matter. Learned counsel further relied upon 2009 SCM R 1202, which is also on the same footing as in the case supra.
3. ' Learned counsel on the point of further inquiry and common intention has relied upon the case of Dil Murad v. The State reported in 2010 SCM R 1178, paragraph 6 which carried the ratio of precedent holding that as a matter of well-settled law a case of like nature becomes one of further inquiry on which bail is open to be granted unless the matter carries compelling reasons and circumstances diverting the court to an adverse finding. In the instant matter, there appears no such material which could justify that the bail granted in the matter was wrong and incorrect, in the circumstances.
4. ' Learned A.P.-G. Also supports the bail order in favour of the respondents simply on the score of their being women folk whereas on merits he is also of the view that the case requires further inquiry and as a matter of law the respondents are entitled to remain on bail.
5. ' In these circumstances, the application stands dismissed having no merits.