' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Aslam Bajwa, the complainant of case F.I.R.
No,486, dated 25-10-2011, under section 365-A, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura, by filing this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail allowed to Imran Mushtaq respondent No,2, by a learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12-3-2012, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1547/B of 2012.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, it is observed that the petitioner, being complainant of the above said case, had reported the crime to the police by asserting that his nephew Hassan Afzal had been abducted by three unknown accused persons. Later on, he rendered a supplementary statement before the I.O. On 5-11-2011, whereby he implicated respondent No,2 as an accused of this case on the basis of evidence of extra-judicial confession, allegedly rendered by the latter before him. There was hardly any occasion for the accused to admit his guilt before the petitioner-complainant, as his name/implication in the instant case was still undiscovered by the Investigating Officer. The circumstantial evidence like the one, found in the instant case is certainly a weak type of evidence, which can easily be manoeuvred by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence does not come their way.
The bail granting order passed by this Court does not contain any such argument or observation, which may be considered "odd man out" or which may be deemed incompatible with the data available on the record. Relevant excerpt of the bail granting order is reproduced hereunder:- "The case against the petitioner hinges on the extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before the complainant. No reason for making such an extra judicial confession has been given.
The petitioner is residing in the same village. The main co-accused have been arrested and have been duly identified in the identification parade. In the whole prosecution case there is no allegation that the petitioner had associated the main accused for abduction or detaining the abductee in illegal confinement. Even amount of ransom was not handed over to the petitioner.
Keeping in view that the only evidence available against the petitioner is that of extra judicial confession which is of very weak type of evidence .And needs strong corroboration from the other attending circumstances which are lacking in the present ' case, we find that case of the petitioner at this stage has become that of further inquiry. In this respect we are fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 184). It will be seen at the time of recording of evidence as to what extent the petitioner is liable. The trial is in progress and person of the petitioner is no more required for investigation."
The impugned order is elaborate and well-reasoned. A bail granting order may be prone to interference under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. , if the same is arbitrary, absurd or fanciful. The discretion left in, the court under. Section 497(5), Cr.P.C.: is pari material with the D principles, which apply to the setting aside of the orders of acquittal. Reference may be made to the cases of Mian Dad v. The State andanother (1992 SCM R 1286) and Muhammad Tayyab v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 597). The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or absurdity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference.
3. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.