Gul Rehman, son of Fazal-ur-Rahman, petitioner/complainant, has filed this application for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Fatehullah, accused/Respondent No, 2, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III D.I.Khan vide order dated 18/2/2012 in case FIR No, 275 dated 2/5/2011 of Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan registered under Section 324/34, PPC.
2. The allegation against the accused/respondent is that he had effectively fired at the complainant with his pistol in Mohallah Bara Khel with which he was hit on his cheek. The motive was dispute over the street.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that the impugned order granting post-arrest bail to the accused/ respondent is not based on legal footings because he is directly charged and a prima facie case exists against him. He argued that a specific role of effective firing has been attributed to the accused/respondent which was witnessed by Saif-ur- Rahman and thus the concession of bail has been allowed on the grounds inconsistent with the law and norms of justice.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/ respondent supported by the learned counsel for the state defended the impugned order on the grounds that the weapon of offence has not been recovered from the accused/respondent; that the medicolegal report of the complainant, is not in consonance with his ocular account; that despite the fact that the respondent/respondent has remained in police custody but he has not confessed his guilt and that there are no sufficient grounds for believing that he is guilty of the offence charged with. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order is quite legal and needs no interference.
5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the record depicts that the alleged occurrence took place at 7.30 p.m. but the report was lodged after an inordinate delay of two hours at 21.30 hours and thus the element of consultation and deliberation cannot be ruled out. Secondly, the accused/respondent is charged by the complainant for effectively firing at him with his pistol, but the weapon of offence has been recovered from his co-accused Hidayatullah. The medicolegal report of the complainant shows skin deep wound on his right upper facial region and the nature of injury is simple. Though the complainant was at the mercy of the accused/respondent but there is no allegation of repetition of fire and thus even the very applicability of Section 324, PPC becomes doubtful. The impugned order is, therefore, quite legal and needs no interference.
8. Moreover, principles for the 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 required for its cancellation which are lacking here. Neither the accused/respondent is alleged to have mis-used the concession of bail nor has tampered with the prosecution evidence.
9. Consequently, while following the dictum handed down by the apex Court in the case reported in 2004 SCM R 231 titled Muzzafer Iqbal Vs. Muhammad Imran Aziz etc. I find no substance in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed.
Any observation made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not prejudice or influence the mind of the learned trial Judge during trial.