1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.---Through instant Crl. Misc. Application the applicant/complainant seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by learned Sessions Judge Larkana vide order dated 13.8.2015, in Crime No, 124/2015 of Police Station Ratodero under sections 302, 337-H(2), 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C.
2. ' The-relevant facts of the case are that on 25.7.2015 Ansar Ali, the son of complainant and Sibtain Shah had exchanged harsh words, but Sibtain Shah had issued threats to Ansar All that he would face the consequences. On the same day complainant, his sister's son Waheed Murad, nephew Mohammad Yasin and Mushtaque went to P.S. And gave such information. Thereafter they went to Waddo Allam to complain to the elders of Sibtain Shah, where Raja Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others met them. The complainant narrated the high handedness of Sibtain Shah to them, whereupon Sibtain Shah and others became annoyed and abused the complainant party. Complainant party was returning back to home, but at 11:30 p.m. Accused Shahid Shah, Kamran Shah having Repeaters, Bhooral Shah having Lathi, Tameer Shah, Sibtain Shah, Samar Abbas Shah having Pistols, all resident of Waddo Allam and Constable Shahnawaz deployed for security purpose at Waddo Allam armed with G-3 rifle and five unknown persons having repeaters and K.Ks. Appeared there. It is alleged that accused Shahid Shah instigated others to kill them, whereupon all accused persons fired at complainant party. The complainant party raised cries but accused Sibtain Shah fired at Waheed Murad which hit him and he fell down and the accused persons went away towards their houses. The complainant party went over Waheed Murad but he succumbed to injuries. Thereafter complainant took the dead body with the help of PWs, went to Taluka Hospital and then he went to PS where he lodged the FIR.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana is contrary to law and facts; that accused/ respondent No,1 is nominated in FIR with specific role of instigation and the PWs have supported the version of complainant in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements. He further contended that the respondent No,1 in collusion with other accused committed the murder of deceased and main role of instigation is attributed to him. He also submitted that respondent No,1 is connected with the commission offence which falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, bail granted to him may be cancelled. He relied upon case of Mst. Shafeen Akhtar v. Malik Mumraiz and others (2014 PCr.LJ 1415).
4. ' Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 submitted that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, does not suffer from infirmity. He further submitted that respondent No,1 was allegedly armed with repeater but he did not use the same in the commission of offence, the role of firing at deceased is attributed to co-accused, hence question of his sharing common intention would be decided by learned trial Court after recording of evidence. He also submitted that there is no allegation of misusing the concession of bail against the respondent No,1 added that consideration for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally different and bail granted to accused cannot be cancelled without cogent grounds.
5. ' Learned A.P.G supported the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No, I.
6. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record minutely.
7. Perusal of record reflects that role of firing at deceased is attributed to co-accused Sibtain Shah while the allegation against respondent No,1 is that he instigated others to kill the complainant, though he was armed with repeater but he did not cause any injury to deceased or any PW. The case of prosecution is that all the accused persons are resident of Waddo Allam and the complainant party themselves had gone to Waddo Allam where alleged incident took place, hence question of preplanning does not arise. The impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, is also in accordance with law and bail was rightly granted to respondent No,1 while relying upon case of Syed Muhammad Firdos and others v. The State (2005 SCM R 784).
8. ' It is also settled law that considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different from those required for grant of hail. Once the accused has been admitted to bail by a competent Court of law, then extra ordinary circumstances are required to interfere with the said order. The most important factors to be considered in the cancellation of bail are that whether the accused has misused the concession of bail or there is likelihood to abscond from the Court and whether the accused is tampering with the prosecution evidence. In the case in hand there is no such allegation that respondent No,1 has misused the concession of bail or he is likely to abscond or he has tampered with the prosecution evidence.
9. ' The upshot of above discussion is that the applicant complainant has failed to make out a case for recalling of bail granted to respondent No,1, therefore, the instant Crl. Misc. Application was dismissed by short order dated 26.09.2016, and these are the reasons for the same.