' SHAKEEL AHMED BALOCH, J.---This order disposes of Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.500 of 2015 filed by the applicant (complainant) Muhammad Nasir Kasi seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2 Iqbal Ahmed Kasi son of Malik Allah Dad Khan and Asmatullah son of Malik Nadir Khan passed by the learned Sessions Judge Quetta vide order dated 21st September 2015 in case FIR No.149/2015 PS Civil Line Quetta, under Sections 337-AD, 504, 506, 353, 109, P.P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 21st August 2015 the complainant Muhammad Nasir Kasi, Advocate, lodged above FIR against the accused/respondents stating therein that on the said date at about 10.15 A.M. In the Court of Senior Civil Judge-II Quetta, when he was appearing in a case titled "Muhammad Nasir v. Bahadur Khan", during the case proceedings the accused/respondent No.2 at the behest and instigation of accused/respondent No.1 attacked on him and gave fist blow on his mouth, which caused injury to him. The complainant alleged that since the applicant No. 2 is counsel for the opponent party in the above cited case and he in order to pressurize the complainant to withdraw from pursuing the case has attacked and injured him.
3. The accused/respondents, apprehended their arrest have surrendered themselves to the mercy of Sessions Court, Quetta for grant of anticipatory bail, hence ad-interim bail was granted to them vide order dated 24th August 2015 and after hearing the arguments, the same was confirmed vide order dated 21st September 2015, whereafter instant bail cancellation application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for applicant (complainant) stated that sufficient incriminatory evidence is available on record connecting the accused with the commission of crime; that the accused/respondents have been charged with non-bailable offences; that after release of bail the accused/ respondents have misused the concession of bail by putting undue influence upon the Investigating Officer of the case and thus caused hindrance in the investigation; that two other FIRs have also been lodged against the accused/respondents; that the bail granting order is perverse and contrary to material available on record.
5. Learned Additional P.G. Supported the contention of learned counsel for the complainant/applicant and stressed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents.
6. Learned counsel for accused/respondents while supporting the bail granting order stated that the alleged offences do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.; that the innocence or guilt of the accused/respondents are yet to be determined, which can only be ascertained after according evidence; that there were sufficient grounds available on record for making out a case of further inquiry, which fact was rightly appreciated by the trial Court; that the accused/respondents have never abused or misused the concession of bail.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. At bail stage only the tentative assessm ent of the record is to be considered and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible. It is a well settled principle of law that when bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then very strong reasons are required for its cancellation. The Court has to see whether the accused after release on bail is misusing the concession of bail or creating hindrance for the complainant party or due to the release of the accused the lives of the prosecution witnesses are at risk and that the accused is tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Record reflects that there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the accused/ respondents after their release on bail have put pressure upon the Investigating Officer of the case, which created hindrance in the investigation of the case. However, for the sake of arguments actually, if the accused/respondents had pressurized the I.O., then under such circumstances the I.O. Should have moved an application for cancellation of bail. Mere words of the complainant are not enough to hold the accused/respondents guilty of misuse of concession of bail.
8. So Par as, the registration of two separate FIRs is concerned, suffice to observe here that the instant FIR was lodged on 21st August 2015, while the remaining two FIRs were lodged on the following day i.e. 22nd August 2015, while the accused/respondents surrendered themselves to the mercy of trial Court on 24th August 2015 and after grant of ad-interim bail the same was confirmed on 21st September 2015. Admittedly, the above referred FIRs were lodged prior to passing of bail granting order, which is enough to falsify the contention of complainant that the accused/respondents have misused or abused the concession of bail.
9. As far as the contention of learned counsel for complainant/ applicant that the alleged offences are non-bailable, suffice to observe here that the offences under sections 504, 506 P.P.C. Are bailable, while Section 353, P.P.C. Provides imprisonment of either description for 2 years, or fine or both, while Section 337A provides Daman and imprisonment of either description for two years and Section 337AD provides Arsh, imprisonment of either description for ten years and punishment provided for Itlaf-i-udu or Itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, if caused therefore, the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases the principles laid down by the Apex Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Tario Bashir and 5 others v. The State, PLD 1995 SC 34 is applicable wherein it has been held as under:-- ' It is crystal clear that in bailable offences the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace. Section 497, Cr.P.C.
Divided non-bailable offences into two categories i.e. (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years. The principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years') the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example--
(a) where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused;
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and
(d) where the accused is a previous convict."
10. As far as, the merits of the case are concerned, it has come on record that civil litigation between the complainant/applicant and the respondent are pending. Besides no specific role has been attributed to any of the respondents. Even otherwise, nothing incriminatory evidence is available on record to suggest that the said attack was launched by the accused/respondent No.2 at the behest or instigation of the accused/ respondent No. 1. As discussed above, once the bail is granted, for its cancellation there must be strong and exceptional grounds/reasons connecting the accused with the commission of alleged non-bailable offence. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Ehtesab Bureau, Azad Jammu and Kashmir v. Muhammad Hanif Shaikh and another 2004 PCr.LJ 996 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 a very strong evidence connecting the accused with the commission of alleged non-boilable offence for cancelling his bail."
11. Since, it has been established on record that the accused/respondents have not misused the concession of bail hence under the settled principles laid down for grant of bail, the cancellation of bail granted to accused/respondents at this stage is improper. In this regard reliance is placed on a case reported as Suba Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal and 2 others 2006 SCM R 66. For facilitation, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced herein below:-- "6. This is settled rule that if the Court while granting bail has not violated the principles laid down for grant of bail, the cancellation is not proper."
12. The tentative assessm ent of material available on record prima facie reveals that the innocence or guilt of the accused/respondents are yet to be ascertained, which can only be determined during trial after recording some material evidence, hence the trial Court has rightly held that it is a case of further inquiry. I have no hesitation to hold that at this stage the cancellation of bail will not serve any useful purpose. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court while extending the concession of bail.
' For the above reasons, the application for cancellation of bail is rejected.
' The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the merits of the case at the trial.