AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 02.06.2018, passel by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,77/2018, whereby he taken the applicant into custody, remanded him to Sub-Jail Khipro by setting aside the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Khipro, who granted bail to the applicant, in Crime No, 66/2018, registered at Police Station Khipro by respondent No,3 for the offences punishable under sections 337-A (i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2); 114, 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. Allegation against the applicant is that he along with co-accused while armed with hatchets and lathis caused injures to Akbar, the brother of complainant so also abused the complainant party.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro while passing the impugned order did not consider the facts that there are general allegations against the accused and the fact as to who caused injury, it is yet to be determined at the trial and offence is triable by learned Magistrate; admittedly there was dispute between the parties over rotation of water; the delay in lodgment of FIR i,e, about 11 days without plausible explanation. He further contended that the accused challenged the medical certificate of injured before Special Medical Board where it is yet to be determined; that the offence does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that there is no likelihood of absconsion of the applicant or tampering with the evidence of prosecution evidence as all P.Ws. are interested.
He pointed out that it is well settled that pre-arrest or post-arrest bail cannot be equated as the element for both, either grant or rejection of bail, has different wisdom but the learned Court below has not considered this aspect. He also submitted that for cancellation of bail, there must of tangible grounds showing the misuse of concession of bail or tampering with the prosecution evidence but the same are lacking. He prayed for setting aside the- impugned order. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the cases reported in 2004 SCM R 231 and PLD 2009 SC 427.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3/ complainant vehemently opposed the contentions as advanced by the applicant's counsel and contended that applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role; that the delay in lodgment of FIR has been fully explained; that the injured Akbar received as many as 15 injuries on different parts of his body; that all the PWs have fully supported the prosecution case. He also contended that still the accused are extending threats for dire consequences and in this regard the complainant party also moved an application before SSP Sanghar. He prayed for dismissal of instant revision application.
5. Learned D.P.G. appearing on behalf of State by supporting the impugned order contended the gravity of offence / injuries is to be taken into consideration even in the cases which do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, respondent/complainant, D.P.G. for the State and perused the impugned order as well cited case law carefully.
7. It is well settled principle of law that for cancellation of bail, the complainant is essentially required to urge strong and exceptional ground of misuse of the concession of bail to the accused and tampering with evidence once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The factors for cancellation of bail are to be considered i,e, conduct of A parties after bail whether accused is misusing the facility of bail or likely, to abscond; whether he is hampering the investigation or threatening the witnesses and whether accused is creating obstruction in the course of justice. In the instant case, all these factors are missing through tangible evidence.
8. Grant of bail to accused is discretionary in accordance with settled norms of justice and for cancelling the bail already granted to accused, there must be grounds warranting interference in the bail granting order unless the accused fails to establish the existence of reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he was not guilty of the offence but the impugned order is lacking from such grounds. Moreover, bail before arrest and after arrest cannot be equated at all as the pre- arrest bail is usually based if the arrest of the accused is meant for ulterior motives, such as humiliation and unjustified harassment by the prosecuting agency, motivation to cause irreparable injury to his B reputation and liberty; whereas, post-arrest bail to the accused is always based (i) at the discretion of Court after assessing merit of the case finding sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of accused or (ii) on medical ground that remaining of the accused in jail would be detrimental to his life or (iii) on the ground of delay in trial as statutory right.
9. It is the prime duty of Court to consider all the facts either in grant of bail to the accused or rejection of the same especially when after grant of bail, an application for cancellation of the bail is entertained; in such a case, the essentials, as discussed above, must be considered. The bail order must be carefully balanced and considered in degree of justice and obligation of applicable law. Case has already been challaned, therefore, there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The injuries of the injured have been challenged before Special Medical Board by the accused, hence, the -gravity of the same is yet to be determined.
10. In view of the above, instant Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro is set aside and order dated 21.05.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Khipro whereby applicant was admitted to bail, is maintained. However, the applicant shall furnish fresh surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.