1. SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.---The instant revision petition has been filed against the order passed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber dated 20.06.2015, whereby, pre-arrest bail application of the accused/respondents was confirmed.
2. Brief facts forming background of the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed a written report at police Station Choki alleging therein that when he reached at home, Muhammad Irfan, was present at his house and seeing him Muhammad Irfan thrown a stone at him which hit him. He also falling him down, in the meantime, Ubaid, Adnan, Imran sons of Ghulam Hussain caste Mughal also came on the spot who armed with sticks and having common intention hit the complainant.
3. Ubaid hit him with stick at his head and caused injury. The occurrence was witnessed by his family.
4. The motive behind the occurrence was that the uncle of complainant had divorced the sister of Ubaid and others, namely Sagheeran Bibi.
5. On this report, a case under sections 448/337-A1 to 6, 337-Fl to 6, 34, APC was registered at police Station Choki against accused/ respondents. After registration of the case, the accused/respondents moved a pre-arrest bail application before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber on 04.06.2015 which was allowed and confirmed through impugned order dated 20.06.205. Hence, this revision petition.
6. Mr. Abdul Razzaq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that specific role In the occurrence was attributed to the accused-respondents and it was stated that Muhammad Irfan accused pelted stone over the complainant who got injured, whereas, accused Ubaid, Imran and Adnan assaulted the complainant, Khadim injured as well as the house lady with sticks, therefore, the accused-respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following case law and craved for acceptance of the revision petition and reversal of the impugned order:--
1. 2015 SCR 588
2. 1994 SCR 912.
3. PLD 1986 SC(AJ&K)
7. 16.
4. 1998 SCMR 496 On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Younas Tahir, advocate, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents controverted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the dispute between the parties pertains to divorce of the sister of one of the accused-respondents and the parties are close relatives. The learned counsel further contended the challan of the case has been submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. The learned counsel maintained that after obtaining concession of bail the accused-petitioners appeared before the Investigation Agency and also facilitated, however, now their persons are no more required by the police therefore, no ground for cancellation of the confirmed bail is on record. While referring the following case law the learned counsel craved for dismissal of the petition:-- 1.1996 PCr.LJ 569 2.1996 SCR 03.
8. 3.2014 SCR 579 4.2010 SCR 491 5.2015 SCR 465 The learned A.A.G appeared on behalf of the State fully supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as -we learned A.A.G representing the State and also gone through the record of the case with due care.
10. As the challan of the case has been submitted before the Court of competent Jurisdiction and the case is at the verge of evidence A therefore, in my considered view the repetition of facts and merits of the case will serve no purpose, rather, the same may be fatal to the case of either party.
11. Apart from attending the merit of the case it may be stated that the bail once extended to an accused can only be recalled for certain inevitable reasons and the same cannot be done in routine. The Apex Court of AJ&K in a case titled Muhammad Asghar v. Arshad Anwar and another (2010 SCR 491) has pleased to observer as under:- This Court has held in many cases that the grounds for the cancellation of bail are quite different as compared to grant of bail. Once a bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction it can only be recalled by this Court if it appears to be perverse arbitrary and without any reason or in violaton of law. This view finds support from the case reported as Muhammad Miskeen v.
12. Muhammad Ayub (1992 SCR 379) wherein it is held as under:- "This Court does not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts below in bail matters until and unless the same is shown to be perverse or clearly violative of the statutory provisions.
13. Even if there is a possibility to draw a different view that also is not considered a valid reason for recalling the concession of bail once extended in favour of accused, therefore, finding no force, this appeal is dismissed."ed order of the trial Court, when judged in the-light of the above dictum of the Apex Court of AJ&K, the same leaves no room for interference by this Court.
14. So far as the case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in my view the same is not directly attracted with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, therefore, need not to be discussed.
15. In the light of above discussion, finding no force in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
16. Order announced.