' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Haji Hikmat Khan, complainant/petitioner, has filed this application for the cancellation of bail granted to his brother, namely, Muhammad Jalat Khan, accused/respondent, by the learned Additional Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Southern Region, Bannu, Camp Court D.I. Khan, vide. Order dated 10-7-2009, in case F.I.R. No,5 dated 1-6-2009 under sections 419/427/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, of police station, Anti-Corruption Establishment
2. According to the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant Haji Hikmat Khan, his sons, namely, Imran Hayat and Faisal Hayat, are owners in equal shares of landed property situated in Garrah Rahman, Tehsil D.I. Khan. Bearing Khasta Nos. 285, 83, 123 and 110 through Mutation No,422 attested on 30-7- 1977 measuring No,765 kanals 8 marlas that his brother. Namely, Jaiat Khan being a greedy person is on strained relations with him for the last eight years and in order to harass him had dragged him in numerous criminal and civil cases; that in order to finish him and his children financially and to deprive them of their landed property with the active connivance of Ahmad Bakhsh, patwari halqa, Abdul Haleem Khan, Girdawar Circle, Abdur Rahman, Tehsildar, Allah Nawaz son of Ranjhu and Dilshad Moeen son of Talib Din, caste Khattak, resident of D.I. Khan and in their ignorance had fraudulently transferred the said land through a fictitious Mutation No,
3. 1180 dated 14-9-1998 in his name; that on coming to know about the said fraud, on 30-12-1999 he had moved the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, D.I. Khan for cancellation of the aforesaid mutation and after a thorough probe, the said mutation was found bogus and thus the matter was sent to the Additional Commissioner, D.I. Khan under section 164(3) of the Revenue Act 1967, who after hearing both the parties ordered the cancellation of the aforesaid mutation; that his brother had previously too remained involved in such like bogus activities and during the year 1965 had fraudulently transferred the landed property of his three sisters measuring 350 kanals situated in Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh Punjab through a cancelled power of attorney in the names of his sons about which case F.I.R. No,20 dated 6-11-1995 under sections 471/420/468, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Chatyana, Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh Punjab against Jalat Khan and the revenue hierarchy. In the above background, the instant case was registered against the respondent and others.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order releasing the accused/respondent on bail is against law. Facts and justice; that the charge against the respondent was duly proved from the Revenue Record; that the plea of illness of the accused/respondent was not based on true facts; that after his release on bail, the respondent is threatening the complainant with dire consequences and thus he is misusing the concession of bail and that the impugned order was not passed on the merits of the case.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate-General representing the State assisted by the learned counsel for the accused/respondent supported the grant of bail on the grounds that the impugned order suffers from no illegality; that the accused/respondent had not misused the concession of bail because there is no documentary proof in this behalf; that the plea of ailment raised by the respondent was based on correct legal facts and that the arguments agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition and those addressed at the bar relate to the merits of the case which cannot be gone into at this stage.
5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and anxiously considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record reveals that on 10-7-2009, the complainant/petitioner had recorded statement before the learned Additional Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Southern Region, whereby he had expressed no objection over the release of the accused/respondent and his other co-accused on bail on the ground of compromise which was accordingly acted upon and all the accused were accordingly admitted to bail. However, when the compromise could not be materialized, the complainant sought cancellation of bail of all the accused but vide the detailed order dated 6-7- 2011 of the learned Special Additional Judge, Anti-Corruption Head Quarter, Bannu, Camp Court, D.I: Khan, he could not succeed and the cancellation application was accordingly dismissed.
7. The grounds prevailed with the learned lower court in granting bail to the accused/respondent are neither perverse, nor fanciful. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed at the bar relate to the merits of the case which cannot be adjudged at this stage.
8. Even otherwise, the principles for the grant of bail and cancellation thereof are quite different from each other. Once bail is granted by a competent court of law, then strong and exceptional grounds, i,e, misuse of the concession of bail and tampering with the investigation process etc; are essentially required to recall the bail, which are lacking in the case in hand and more so in a situation where the respondent has been on bail for the last over two years i,e, since 10-7-2009. The non-settling of the dispute between the complainant and his accused brother does not make out a good ground to cancel the bail granted by a competent court of law.
9. Moreover, it cannot be left to the sweet will, discretion and prerogative of the complainant that he may at a certain point of time make a request before a Court of law for his no objection over the release of an accused on bail and still at another time of his own choice may make a request to recall the bail order. The process of law cannot be made subservient to the will of an individual.
10. For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed. However, since the challan is complete and the case is ripe for trial, therefore, the learned trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial within three months after receipt of record of the case.