' ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.---Through this application, the applicant/ complainant, Nazar Khan, has sought for the cancellation of the bail granted in favour of private respondents in the case FIR No, 3 of 2015 dated 30.5.2015, registered with Police Station, Kingri, district Musakhail, in respect of the offences under Sections 302, 324, 427, 147, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Loralai, in Bail Application No, 42 of 2015 vide order dated 26.11.2015 "the impugned order".
2. The prosecution story as given in the impugned order briefly stated as follows:-- "Brief facts leading to filing of the instant application are that on 30-05-2015 complainant Nazar Khan got registered a case at Police Station Kingri with the averments therein that he is transporter and owner of New Afghan Super Mekhtar Daewoo service and on 29-05-2015 at 11:30 a.m. His Daewoo coach having registration No,LES/1 boarded with passengers started for Multan from Loralai, at 2.00 p.m. When reached at Chapp Road between Kingri and Kajoori, the accused persons Tariq Khan, Doulat Khan, Abdul Sattar, Fazal Khan, Khairullah, Akmal, Molvi Siraj-ud-Din duly armed were found standing on road with a Saracha vehicle and motorcycle, who started firing upon Daewoo Bus and got damaged the bus, while due to the said firing a F.C. Personnel died and two passengers sustained injuries, while the said crime was planned by Haji Jahangir, Jahanzeb, Zahir Khan, Bashir, Musa, Malak Abdullah, Master Muhammad Khan, Ghulam Muhammad, Nizam and Hayat Khan and he was informed by eyewitnesses passengers namely Ilyas and Fazal Muhammad. The complainant requested for taking legal action against the accused persons and on this report the instant case was registered."
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the bail granted in favour of private respondents being patently illegal and erroneous, is liable to be cancelled; that while granting bail to the respondents, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the offences, allegedly, committed by the respondents, fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the bail granted in their favour, is liable to be cancelled.
4. On the other hand, the learned DPG adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record. After giving an ardent hearing to the learned counsel for the parties, we have straightaway noticed that no allegation has been leveled by the applicant against respondents, either of misusing the bail or hurling any threat on the applicant. It is also an admitted fact that the trial has already been commenced and two prosecution witnesses have already been examined.
6. It is settled principle of law that once bail has been granted, there must be A strong and exceptional reasons for its cancellation as has been laid down in the case reported as Ehsan Akbar v. The State and 2 others (2007 SCM R 482), in which it has been held as under: "7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to bail particularly in case of murder when the trial is to commence so as to avoid discussion and remarks on the merits of the case. But it is also fact that for cancellation of bail, strong and exceptional grounds are required. It is to be seen as to whether order granting bail is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and as resulted in miscarriage of justice."
It is brought to our notice that the trial of the case is in progress; however, the same has not been concluded as yet. In such like situation, this Court is always reluctant to interfere with the orders relating to bail matters particularly in a case when the trial was going to commence so as to avoid the discussion and remarks on the merits of the case as has been held in a case reported as Mian Dad v. The State and another {1962 SCMR 1418}, wherein it has been observed as under:-- "During hearing of the case it transpired that challan having been comitted in Court the trial is going to commencer The learned Advocate-General has relied on Akmal Masih and others v.
Sciamal Masih and 4 others 1988 SCMR 918 in support of the contention that this court ordinarily does not consider it appropriate at the stage as in present case to interfere with the orders of the High Court relating to bail.... Particularly in cases of murder. So far as it goes the contention raised by the learned Advocate-General has the support of the judgment cited by him,"
' Similarly in a case titled Zia-ulHassan Shah and another v. The State {1996 SCMR 238}, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-- "....It may be pointed out here that in bail matters, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below. If an order pertaining to bail matter does not suffer from any legal defect which patently shakes the prosecution story, this Court is always slow to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Court below."
7. This case pertains to year 2015 and there is no positive progress in the trial. Nothing has been brought on the record that the accused/respondents have misused the concession of bail. Even otherwise, the considerations in grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. The provisions of subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C., are not punitive in nature and there is no compulsion for the cancellation of bail unless the order of bail is patently illegal, erroneous and factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or where the accused/respondents were found to be making efforts to misuse concession of bail by extending threats or tampering with the prosecution case.
We failed to find any such element from the impugned order/record.
8. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of either party as the trial is already in progress, the learned counsel for the applicant failed to make out a case