The petitioner was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 14th October, 1981. The complainant moved petition under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C. For the cancellation of the bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the application and cancelled the bail of the present petitioner vide order dated 3rd December, 1981 on the ground of tampering with the prosecution evidence,
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the bail had -been allowed to the petitioner on the ground that his case was that of further inquiry and fell under section 497 (2), Cr.
P. C. The same could not be subsequently cancelled and the order was illegal. In support of his contention, he cited case titled Sardar Khan alias Sardara v. Muhammad Fazil and 4 others (1978 P Cr. L J 266).
3. The learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner had tampered with- the prosecution evidence and had threatened the complainant and his brother and thus his bail was rightly cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant produced a copy of F. I. R. No. 235, dated 6th December, 1981, pertaining to Police Station Chung, which was registered on the statement of Muhammad Hanif under sections 148, 324, 307/149, P. P. C. Against Khalid petitioner and others and contends that the petitioner bad repeated the offence and for that reason, be was not entitled to the concession of bail. He further contends that the remedy of the petitioner was by way of filing a revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He further contends that the petitioner had threatened the prosecution witnesses and thus not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 14th October, 1981.
He clearly mentioned in the said order that the case of the petitioner was that of further inquiry.
After arriving at the said conclusion, he allowed bail to the petitioner. The complainant moved petition for cancellation of bail on the ground that the peti--tioner had threatened him and his brother Muhammad Din for which, two reports had been recorded in the Roznamcha. The petitioner had been allowed bail on the ground that his case was covered under sec--tion 497 (2), Cr. P. C. If the case of a person falls under section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. He becomes entitled to bail. In bailable offences, bail cannot be cancelled on the ground that an accused person tampers with the prosecution evidence. Similarly, in cases where bail is allowed after the Court comes to the conclusion that his case is covered under sec--tion 497 (2), Cr. P. C. Bail cannot be cancelled on the ground of tampering C with the prosecution evidence. This Court has ample power under section 498, Cr. P. C. To allow bail to an accused person in any case. The peti--tioner was not required to file a revision petition against the impugned order. He can be admitted to boil under section 498, Cr. P. C.
6. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate.