Through this petition moved under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks recall of order dated 07.9.2018 whereby Respondents No, 1 and 2 were admitted to post arrest bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No, 225 dated 27.3.2018 under Sections 365-B, 376(ii), 371-A, PPC registered at Police Station New Multan, District Multan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is result of misreading and non reading of evidence; that sufficient incriminating material was available on record against Respondents No, 1 and 2 but learned trial Court did not appreciate it; that it was, in fact, the case of gang rape but learned trial Court exercised its jurisdiction contrary to law on the subject, thus, impugned order was liable to be set aside.
3. Learned 'counsel for Respondents No, 1 and 2 maintained the validity of the impugned order .
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. A review of the record demonstrates that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge admitted the Respondents No, 1 and 2 on post arrest bail. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge dealt with the merits of the case in Para-6 of the impugned order which reflects that the respondents were not nominated in the FIR. MLR was in conflict with DNA report, not received and it was difficult to determine in absence of the report regarding actua l culprit of the offence and that nothing was recovered from the said respondents during the investigation.
6. It may be noted that this is an application for cancellation of bail and that consideration for cancellation of bail are quite different from the grounds for grant of bail. The grounds for cancellation of bail are akin to the grounds for appeal against acquittal This was the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Mian Dad v . The State and another " (1992 SCMR 1286 ).
As such, in order to succeed, the learned counsel is required to show that the order whereby the bail was granted is perverse, no other conclusion could be drawn except the guilt of the accu sed or that there was material substance not considered by the Court resulting in miscarriage of the justice. It may be noted that the learned counsel did not make any submission on these lines and therefore, I am of the considered view that the instant petition has no merits and is dismissed.