' MUHAMMAD ALAM, Petitioners have sought cancellation of bail facility to the respondents, granted by the trial Court through orders dated 22-05-2015 and 19-09-2015 of the said Court.
2. Prosecution story of occurrence is that on the day of occurrence, respondents found the deceased in a cattle shed adjacent to the house of respondent No, 1 Respondents took the deceased to the home of respondent No,1 and gave a ruthless beating. Deceased was taken to the hospital in injured condition where he succumbed to the injuries. Local police reached on the scene of occurrence, prepared site plan and completed investigation proceedings. So far, trial of the case has commenced and the trial court has recorded statements of two PWs as part of the trial proceedings. Trial court released respondents Atta Ullah and Shiraf-ud-Din on bail, through order dated 22-05-2015 and then through order dated 19-09-15, learned trial court granted bail facility to rest of the respondents.
3. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General as well as of learned counsel for respondents. Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the prosecution case is very strong and is supported with strongest kind of prosecution evidence. In the opinion of Deputy Advocate General, the recovery of deceased in injured condition from the house of respondent No,1 and presence of the rest of respondents on the scene of occurrence is sufficient to prima connect respondents with the occurrence and while granting bail, learned trial court must have never ignored this very piece of prosecution evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that two of the respondents are juveniles while as to rest of the respondents, there is no evidence against the respondents. In the opinion of counsel for respondents, mere recovery of deceased in injured condition, even if, for arguments sake admitted, is never sufficient for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel for respondents further argued that bail facility cannot be cancelled while trial of the case in the trial court has already commenced.
4. I have considered arguments of the counsel for parties. In my opinion, bail of any accused can be cancelled if the order of grant of bail is totally incorrect and unfounded. At this stage of the case, we are tentatively assessing the prosecution evidence, which clearly shows that the police have recovered the deceased in injured condition from the house or lawn of respondent No,1. This fact is established from the site plan and site inspection report also. This very fact is established from the statements of almost all the PWs. Prosecution evidence further shows that the death of deceased was caused because of injuries to the head of deceased through blunt weapon.
Deceased received multiple fracture injuries on the skull of the deceased. This very fact is supported from the autopsy report. So, from joint perusal of site plan, site inspection report, statements of almost all the PWs, it is evident that the occurrence started from the cattle shed of any of the accused and ended in the house or lawn of the house of respondent No,l. Then police took the deceased to the hospital where he breathed his last. So at the ing stage of the case, the trial court could not ignore the so strong pieces of evidence, particularly, where the occurrence is of a heinous nature of murder of deceased.
5. In my opinion, the two orders of the trial Court are very bad in the eye of law and invited interference of this court. I, therefore, set aside order dated 22.05.2015 and order dated 19-09-2015 of the trial court and allow this petition. This file be consigned to record.
Bail cancelled.