1. CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.---This petition has been moved seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 20.06.2013.
2. 2.Briefly, the facts leading to institution of present petition are that on the complaint of present petitioner, case was registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C. against respondent No.2 vide FIR No.62 dated 02.02.2013 at Police Station City Sargodha. Allegation levelled against respondent No.2 was that he had issued a cheque bearing No.2514405 dated 15.07.2012 for the payment of Rs.9,00,000/- which on being presented to the bank authorities was dishonoured. Respondent No.2 approached the court seeking pre-arrest bail which was refused to him vide order dated 08.04.2013. He then filed a petition for the same relief before this Court but the same was withdrawn. He was arrested in the case. His post arrest bail moved before trial court was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2013 where-after, he filed post arrest bail before Sessions Judge which was entrusted for disposal to a learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide order dated 20.06.2013 allowed the petition and granted post arrest bail to respondent No.2. In the above backdrop, seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 has been filed.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with emphasis that after grant of bail to respondent No.2, he tempered with prosecution evidence by removing original cheque from the record regarding which a case was also registered under Section 379, P.P.C. against him and that he has misused the concession of bail and that huge amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was involved. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not exercised jurisdiction in favour of respondent No.2 keeping in view the law laid down by the superior courts on the subject.
4. 4.Petition has been opposed by learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
5. 5.Heard. Perused.
6. 6.The question for consideration by this Court in the light of contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties is whether discretion in favour of respondent No.2 was correctly exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge who granted bail to him and secondly, a case of cancellation of bail was made out in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C., no doubt the court has ample powers to recall bail granted to an accused but this authority has to be exercised in the light of principles laid down by the superior courts on the subject. In the case of Tariq Bashir reported in PLD 1995 SC 34, it was laid down that Section 497, Cr.P.C. divided non bailable offences into two categories i.e. (i)offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10-years and (ii)offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 10-years.
7. It was laid down that principle to be deduced through this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 10- years), grant of bail is rule and refusal an exception. In this category of cases, bail will be declined only in extra ordinary and exceptional cases. This question again came up for consideration in case of "Subhan Khan v. The State" (2002 SCM R 1797) and the above principle was reiterated. In a case titled "Muhammad Akram v. Zahid Iqbal and others" reported in 2008 SCM R 1715, this question again came for consideration. In the above cited case bail was granted in a murder case by the High Court to which complainant took exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that strong and exceptional grounds were required for cancellation of bail. Court had to see as to whether bail granting order was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and had resulted in miscarriage of justice. In another case, identical to the case in hand, registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. titled as "Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others" 2009 SCM R 1488, the principle laid down in Tariq Bashir's case was re-affirmed. In another case titled "Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and another" reported in 2011 SCM R 1708, it was laid down that where a case fell within non prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the concession of granting bail must be favorably considered and should only be denied in exceptional cases. The above noted case was also registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., being identical to the case in hand.
8. 7.In the present case, it is found that respondent No.2 is appearing before trial court regularly after he was granted bail on 20.06.2013. The allegation that he removed original cheque after being released on bail, is mere an accusation against him yet to be proved at trial which does not provide sufficient grounds for cancellation of bail.
9. 8.Judicial view is consistent on the point of cancellation of bail that once bail is granted by a competent court there must be strong and exceptional reasons for recalling the same. The grounds required for cancellation of bail may be that order granting bail was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect or it had resulted in miscarriage of justice. None of the grounds mentioned above is made out in this case. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.