MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.- The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of Noor Muhammad, the respondent/ accused granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, vide order dated 11.10.2014 in case F.I.R No.323 dated 29.08.2014, registered U/Ss 324/148/149 PPC at Police Station Town Ship, District Bannu.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly stressed on the point that bail order was passed by the learned Judge on 11.10.2014 and the same presiding officer was transferred vide Peshawar High Court notification No. 09.10.2014, therefore, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on case titled "The State Vs Ali Akbar Sabzoi" (1992 P.Cr.L 122), and "Pir Dad Vs Muhammad Umar and another"
(1990 P.Cr.L.J 1729).
3. Conversely learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the petitioner has taken superficial ground for cancellation of bail that learned Judge of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu was already transferred and even then has heard and granted bail to the accused/ respondent. Learned counsel for respondent vehemently argued that the order passed by learned ASJ-II, Bannu is lawful order and no exception can be taken regarding its having no jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that, as the learned Presiding Officer has not relinquished the charge on the date of said hearing and learned counsel for petitioner not raised any objection at that time, therefore, this cannot be a valid ground for the cancellation of bail. It was further contended that learned counsel for petitioner has not argued the instant case on merits by arguing that five brothers have been charged in the above said FIR and complainant under section 161 Cr.PC narrated a different story from FIR, hence on merits also the case of respondent is one of further inquiry. He lastly argued that authorities produced by learned counsel for complainant / petitioner are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
4. Valuable arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties, Asstt: A.G for the state heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that learned Presiding Officer has been transferred vide Peshawar High Court Notification dated 09.10.2014, whereas the bail granting order was passed on 11.10.2014.
Admittedly the learned Presiding Officer has not relinquished the Charge on the date of hearing hence, was competent to hear and decide the bail petition and other cases till relinquishment of charge, therefore, the above ground for cancellation of bail is not worth consideration. On merits too the case of respondent is one of further inquiry, as five brothers were charged including accused/ respondent, without attributing any specific role to the accused/respondent. Moreover, the petitioner during recording of his statement under section 161 of Cr.PC contradicted mood and manner of occurrence as alleged in the FIR.
6. The rulings/ authorities provided by the learned counsel for petitioner have been decided on different scenario and do not attract to facts or circumstances of the instant case, hence, could not be pressed into service.
7. Moreover, principles governing the grant of bail and that of cancellation stood substantially on different footings. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law, strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancellation thereof and it has to be seen as to whether the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, and factually incorrect and has resulted in to miscarriage of justice. To curtail the liberty of a person on bail, the prosecution should make out a strong case for cancellation by giving substantive proof of allegations leveled in the petition. Learned A.A.G supported the contentions raised by the counsel for petitioner.
8. What has been discussed above the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or wrong exercise of discretion to convince this Court for interference in the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition being without any force is hereby dismissed.