RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J. --- This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the Shariat Court dated 3.11.2012, whereby Criminal revision petition filed by the respondent against the order of the Additional District Criminal Court, Kotli dated 12.6.2012 has been accepted and the respondent was allowed to be released on bail.
2. The relevant facts arising out of this appeal are that a case under Sections 341, 342, 147, 148, 149, 337, A.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Kotli on the complaint of Raja Muhammad Arif. It was alleged that on 5.3.2012 at about 3:30 a.m., the complainant alongwith lshtiaq and Sabir Hussain was going to Sarsawa from home. When they arrived at the shop of Muhammad Mushtaq, they came to know that some people from Suddhan tribe had cordoned off the road, therefore, they decided to go back to home. In the meantime, Naveed, Zubair, Sagheer, Maroof, Shahnawaz, Gul Nawaz, Muzahir, Babar, Basharat, All Asghar armed with lethal weapons stopped them and opened attack. Naveed, accused fired with Kalashnikov and caused injuries to Sabir Hussain at his hand while the Jaffar, accused, fired a shot, which hit at his abdomen. The others were alleged for ineffective firing. Basharat and Zubair, accused, were also alleged for causing stick injuries at the arm of the complainant and head of the deceased. The occurrence was stated to be witnessed by Rizwan and Zaffar Hussain, who rescued the victims. Motive behind the occurrence was an altercation which took place between the parties a day before the occurrence upon cutting the grass from forest.
3. During the investigation, the accused- respondent was arrested. He applied for bail before the.
Trial Court, which was refused vide its judgment dated 12.6.2012. The accused-respondent filed a revision petition before the Shariat Court which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 3.11.2012. Hence this appeal.
4. Mr. Kamran Tariq, - Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, argued that the order of the learned Shariat Court is based on mis-appreciation of record. He argued that the accused-respondent alongwith other co-accused acted and participated in the occurrence and was nominated with his specific role. He contended that it was a broad daylight occurrence, therefore, the question of identification was undoubted. He further contended that the occurrence was pre-planned and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of the prosecution story, which was further corroborated with the medical evidence and recoveries. The learned counsel submitted that all the accused had assembled unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object committed the murder of Sabir Hussain. He argued that all the accused are liable and equally responsible for committing the murder. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Shariat Court while accepting the revision petition has totally deviated from the principle laid down by the superior Courts that the person who is involved in a case which falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not entitled to get the concession of bail. He argued that the order passed by the Trial Court is well-reasoned, which has been disturbed by the Shariat Court without assigning any cogent reasons, which is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel contended that the learned Shariat Court has examined the evidence in-depth, which is clear departure from the principles laid down by the apex Court, which was not warranted under law. He submitted that after getting the concession of bail the accused-respondent were found to be making efforts to misuse concession of bail by extending threats to the appellant and there is apprehension that he shall repeat the offence.
5. Mr. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, Additional Advocate- General, for the-State, has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant.
6. Mr. Abdul Hameed, Advocate, counsel for the accused -respondent, strongly the refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, while submitting that the learned Shariat Court has rightly exercised its discretion, while granting the concession of bail to the accused-respondent. Alongwith the accused-respondent a number of the accused-persons were nominated-in the F.I.R. And no injury has been attributed to the accused-respondent. He argued that the allegation levelled against the accused-respondent that he was armed with stick is not correct and no overt act has been attributed to the accused respondent. The learned counsel argued that the question of vicarious liability shall be determined after recording the evidence, which is not the job of this Court. He submitted that the allegation levelled against the accused-respondent in the F.I.R. Is that he was a member of the unlawful assembly and was present at the time of occurrence.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available. The occurrence took place on 5.3.2012, whereas, the deceased, Sabir Hussain, died on 20.3.2012. It is spelt out from the record that the deceased remained alive till 20.3.2012 and during this period, his statement was recorded immediately on 5.3.2012, where he has not nominated the accused-respondent. Even otherwise, from the contents of the F.I.R., the only allegation against the accused-respondent that he was the member of unlawful assembly and was present at the time of occurrence. No overt act has been alleged neither any injury has been attributed to the accused-appellant. It is cordinal principle of law that while disposing of a bail application, the Court can form the opinion on the basis of material, i.e., allegation levelled in the F.I.R., statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. As the deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not warranted and only a bird eye view has to be taken.
8. After the cursory examination of the material available on the record, it reveals that originally 14 persons were nominated in the F.I.R., out of which two were given benefit of Section 169, Cr.P.C., which makes the case of accused, one of further inquiry. The case falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The question of vicarious liability can only be determined at the time of recording the evidence, which is the job of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has already concluded that the trial is in sight. It is settled principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment if otherwise the accused is entitled for the same. Normally, this Court always reluctant to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Nobody should remain in jail for indefinite period. Even otherwise, the bail is not acquittal; it is only a change of custody. The investigation of the case is already completed and the accused-respondent is no more required for further investigation, therefore, it would be fruitless to send him behind the bars for which no useful purpose can be served. Once a bail has been granted, there must be overwhelming evidence for its cancellation. Reliance can be placed on an unreported judgment of this Court titled Muhammad Asghar Khan v. Lrfan Sharif & others (Crl. Revision Petition No. 2 of 2008, decided on 17.2.2012) in which it has been held by this Court as under:--- "6. It is celebrated principle of law that once bail has been granted, there , must be strong and exceptional reasons for its cancellation as has been laid down in a case reported as Ehsan Akbar v.
The State and 2 others [2007 SCM R 482], in which it has been held as under:- '7. It is well-settled principle of law that this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to bail particularly in case of murder when the trial is to commence so as to avoid discussion and remarks on the merits of the case. But it is also fact that for cancellation of bail, strong and exceptional grounds are required. It is to be seen as to whether order granting bail is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and resulted in miscarriage of justice."
In another case reported as Ehtesab Bureau, Azad Jammu & Kashmir v. Muhammad Hanif Shaikh and another [2003 SCR 427], wherein it has been observed:- ...................... It is a settled principle of law relating to bail matters that once an accused person is granted bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it requires very strong evidence connecting the accused with the commission of alleged non-bailable offence for cancelling his bail."
The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not ' find any illegality in the judgment passed by the Shariat Court which has been passed after attending all the questions involved in the case.
Resultantly, finding no force in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.