SYED AFSAR SHAH J.- Respondents Inayatullah and Naeemullah, who are accused in case FIR No.275 dated 10.7.2014 under sections 302/324/34 PPC of police station, Paroa District D.I.Khan, were admitted to bail by the learned lower Court vide its order dated 11.08.2014 and aggrieved of the same, Amanullah the petitioner has come to this Court for its cancellation.
2. The version of the prosecution as narrated in the F.I.R is that on 10.7.2014 at 1830 hours Amanullah, the complainant/petitioner reported the matter to Muhammad Ashraf Khan SHO of police station concerned to the effect that on the day of occurrence he alongwith Liaqat and Rizwan were present in the house of Shabir their relative when in the meanwhile respondents/accused Inayat and Naeem duly armed with pistol came to there and started firing at them, that due to the firing of the accused Liaqat was injured and fell on the ground. That when he was shifting to the Hospital by Rizwan on his motorbike, on their way accused Hidayat duly armed with SMG and Sanaullah duly armed with rifle, who were standing there in the street started firing at them, resultantly both Liaqat and Rizwan were hit, fell on the ground and died at the spot. Nazir and Qasim who were present there at the spot tried to catch hold of accused Sanaullah but he succeeded in making his escape good from the venue of crime, however, he left his rifle at the spot. The occurrence in addition to the complainant is stated to have been witnessed by PWs Nazir and Qasim whereas motive behind the offence was a previous blood feud. The complainant has charged the respondents/accused alongwith their co-accused for commission of the crime.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It appears from the record available on file that in this case the occurrence took place on 10.7.2014 at 1730, whereas the report has been lodged on the same day at 1830 hours. Amanullah, is the complainant of the present case and he has charged the respondents/accused alongwith their co-accused Hidayat and Sanaullah for commission of the crime.
While going through the record of the case one could reach to the conclusion that the role attributed to the respondents/accused is that they entered into house of Shabir, made firing at the complainant, Liaqat and Rizwan and due to which Liaqat was hit on his left arm. In the first part of the incident, deceased Liaqat was injured due to the firing of respondents/accused, however, when he was taking to the Hospital by the deceased Rizwan, they both were fired at by the accused Liaqat and Sanaullah and died at the spot. In view of the single firearm injury inflected on the person of Liaqat in the initial part of the incident, the case of the respondents/accused is that of further inquiry and which position stands rightly appreciated by the learned lower court.
Again as is evident from the record in the present case investigation is complete, case is ready for trial and as such none of the respondents/accused are required to the local police for further investigation.
Moreover, there is nothing on record whatsoever which could show that the respondents/accused after their release on bail have misused or abused the concession of bail granted to them by the learned lower forum.
Above all, it is settled principle of law that grounds for cancellation of bail are altogether different from that of grant of bail and once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it is rarely interfered with, unless the impugned order is palpably illegal, arbitrary and perverse or against the record. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the present case.
5. In view of the above, the petition for cancellation of bail stands dismissed, however, observations made by the learned lower forum and again by this Court are tentative in nature, which will not prejudice the merits of the case at the trial.