' QAISER RASHID KHAN J . ---Mst. Noor Nama, complainant/petitioner, has filed this application for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Naqibullah, accused/respondent, by the learned Sessions Judge Tank vide order dated 8-12-2011 in case F.I.R. No,205 dated 25-8-2011 of Police Station Mullazai, district Tank, registered under sections 324/34, P.P.C.
2. As per F.I.R., the allegations against the accused/respondent are that he in furtherance of his common intention along with his brothers/co-accused had effectively fired at the complainant with which she was hit on the right leg, over the motive of previous blood feud.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued with great vehemence that the impugned order of the learned lower, court granting bail before arrest to the accused/respondent is not sustainable in the eye of law because it is against the principles enunciated by the superior courts. He argued that the accused/respondent together with his brothers/co-accused is directly charged by the complainant for inflicting firearm injury on her. He submitted that the Medico-legal Report of the complainant fully supports the charge against the accused/respondent. Lastly it was urged that the charge was duly backed by strong motive and thus the accused/respondent was not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail which is liable to be recalled. The learned State counsel supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused/ respondent defended the impugned order on the ground that three real brothers have been charged by the complainant for sustaining a solitary injury and the net has been thrown too wide to implicate the whole male members of the family. It was urged that the report was lodged with a considerable and unexplained delay of seven hours after due consultations and deliberations and thus the chance of false implication of the accused/respondent cannot be ruled out from consideration. The learned counsel submitted that no empty has been recovered from the place assigned to the accused/ respondent in the site-plan. He urged that the accused/respondent is a student of 3rd year and due to previous blood feud, he has been falsely charged in the case.
5. 1 have carefully gone through the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the record indicates that the complainant has sustained a solitary injury on her leg for which she has charged three real brothers and it is not known that with whose fire shot she was injured. The record also depicts that the occurrence had allegedly taken place at 'Subah Vela' while the matter was reported to the local police at 1100 hours and thus there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in making the first report. The Medico-legal Report of the complainant is not in consonance with the ocular account of the complainant and as there is previous blood feud between the parties, therefore, the chances of false charge against the accused/respondent cannot be ruled out from consideration.
7. Even otherwise, grounds for the grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail are quite different from each other. Once bail is granted by a competent court of law, then strong, cogent and exceptional grounds including misuse of the concession of bail or tampering with the prosecution evidence are required for recalling the same which are missing in the case in hand.
8. Therefore, following the dictum handed down by the apex court in the case reported as Muzzafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others (2004 SCM R 231), I find no merit in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed.
9. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that any observations made in this order should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the trial Court.