1. WAQAR AHMAD SETH,J:- Ibrahim(minor) son of Mir Afzal deceased through his grandfather Muhammad Afzal has filed the instant petition for cancellation of bail granted to Mst.Dilshada Bibi widow of the deceased (respondent No.1) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar vide his order dated 15/02/2014 in case FIR No. 676 dated 12/12/2013 under section 302 PPC registered at Police Station, Khazana.
2. 2- The allegations against the accused-respondent are that she alongwith her co-accused Farid Ullah murdered her deceased husband Meer Afzal on the night of 12/12/2013. The report of the occurrence was lodged by his son Ibrahim on 12/12/2013.
3. 3- Muhammad Afzal Khan father of the deceased recorded his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate on 13/01/2015 after a month of the occurrence wherein he charged Mst.Dilshad her daughter-in-law for the murder of his deceased son with the help of accused Faridullah with whom she has illicit relations and thus she was arrayed as an accused in the case and was arrested. After her arrest, the accused-respondent Mst.Dilshada Bibi filed bail application which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Peshawar vide his order dated 22/01/2014. Thereafter she filed similar application in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar which was allowed vide his order dated 15/02/2014. Hence the instant bail cancellation application.
4. 4- Arguments heard and record perused.
5. 5- Perusal of the record reveals that at present except the statement of Muhammad Afzal father of the deceased recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Peshawar on 13/01/2015 and that too was recorded after a delay of one month of the occurrence, there is nothing on record to connect the accused-respondent No.1 with the commission of offence. Furthermore, during the pendency of the bail application of the accused-respondent No.1, Mst.Tahira Bibi elder daughter of the deceased as well as the accused-respondent alongwith her minor brothers and sisters appeared before the Court and submitted an affidavit stating therein that they do not want to charge and prosecute the accused-respondent for the murder of their father and that the allegations levelled by their grandfather against the accused are false and frivolous. Hence, the learned court below has rightly held that it is a case of further inquiry which entitles the accused- respondent to the concession of bail. Moreover, once the concession of bail is extended to the accused charged in a criminal case, then for its cancellation strong and exceptional grounds would be required because provisions of section 497(5) are not punitive. There is no legal compulsion for cancelling bail granted in cases punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. To deprive a person of his freedom is most serious and it has to be seen as to whether bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous and factually incorrect and has resulted in any mis-carriage of justice or it has been mis-used or there is any likelihood of his abscondance or he has tried to tamper with prosecution evidence. There are no such allegations against the accused-respondent at the moment per record on file. The learned court of Additional Sessions Judge concerned has rightly exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused- respondent which calls for no interference by this Court.
6. 5- In view of what has been discussed above, the instant bail cancellation application is dismissed being without any substance.