ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Muzzamil Hussain, complainant/ petitioner, has tiled this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent Allah Nawaz by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Paharpur vide order dated 4-4-2011 in case F.I.R. No. 126 dated 14-6-2010 of Police Station Paharpur registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.
2. The accusation against the accused/respondent is that he was present on the spot duly armed with Kalashnikov at the time of occurrence along with his brother Saifullah who has allegedly committed the murder of the deceased Tajjamul Hussain with a firearm pistol.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner argued that there is ample evidence against the accused/respondent Allah Nawaz in the shape of ocular evidence of two witnesses and thus he has wrongly been granted the concession of bail by the court below through the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, it was argued that no overt-act has been attributed to the accused/respondent in the occurrence and he was only seen running away along with his brother who is charged for effective role.
5. I have carefully gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that the complainant was informed by someone about the death of his brother Tajjamul Hussain and thus the matter was accordingly reported to the police in the hospital. He disclosed in his first report that a shopkeeper, namely, Muhammad Saleem, informed him on Mobile about the murder of his brother by one Saifullah by firing at him. He has further reported that when he reached the spot, he saw Saifullah accused having a pistol and his brother Allah Nawaz, accused/respondent with a Kalashnikov while decamping from the spot. In the F.I.R., accused Saifullah Khan is charged for effective firing and killing the deceased and the respondent Allah Nawaz has not been attributed any overt-act in the occurrence and he was simply shown running together with his brother co-accused Saifullah.
7. In the above circumstances, case of the accused/respondent was of further inquiry entitling him to the grant of bail which was rightly granted to him through the impugned order and needs no interference.
8. Furthermore, principles of grant of bail and cancellation thereof are quite different. Once bail is granted by a competent Court of law, then strong and exceptional grounds are needed for cancellation thereof. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner failed to pinpoint any such infirmity in the impugned order of granting bail to the accused/respondent which is accordingly upheld.
9. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner could not show anything on record that the accused/respondent has either misused the concession of bail or tampered with the investigation process.
10. Consequently, I find no substance in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed.