ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---By means of this application, the applicant/complainant has challenged the order dated 04.04.2019 (hereinafter "the impugned Order") passed by learned Sessions Judge Killa Abdullab, Chaman, (hereinafter "the trial Court"), whereby the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were granted post arrest bail in Crime No.25 of 2019 for an offence under sections 324, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at Levies Thana, Chaman.
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant application are that the complainant/applicant is residing at Bye-pass Road Chaman. On 01.03.2019 the NADRA Van came to his house and one Mehrban who is uncle of accused persons along with other accused persons were receiving tokens for processing their CNICs, in the meanwhile at about 1:45 p.m., the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with other persons who were heavily armed came and forcibly tried to take Mehrban with them and started fighting. The complainant, his brother and other people intervened and respondent No.1 opened fire with pistol and caused bullet injuries on the right foot ankle of applicant while the other accused persons beaten him with fists and kicks.
3. After registration of FIR, the accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2 were arrested, who moved an application for grant of bail after arrest and the same was granted on 04.04.2019. Hence this application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and learned State Counsel and perused the available record with their assistance.
5. It is settled that bail can only be cancelled if bail granting order appears to be perverse and gross illegality has been done. The principles governing the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail substantially stand on different footings. Courts have always been slow to cancel bail already granted as the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed on flimsy grounds. No interference with an order of bail is required to be made unless the order lacks in reasons or is perfunctory in nature.
Once bail has been granted, the prosecution should make out strong case for cancellation not by making allegation alone but by giving substantive proof of such allegation. The cancellation of bail is harsh order because it interferes with liberty of and individual hence it must not be restored to lightly and power to take back in custody is to be exercised with due care and circumspection. In this behalf, I am also fortified by the dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 SCM R 786, 2004 SCM R 1160, 2005 SCM R 1539, 1994 SCM R 1064 and 2004 SCM R 231 in which it was held that considerations for cancellation of bail are quite distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law, strong and exceptional grounds are required for canceling the same. It. has to be seen as to whether order granting bail is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
6. No doubt, the accused/respondents have been charged directly in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to the accused/respondent No.1, but he has been only charged of firing one shot at the victim. He has not repeated the fire when the victim was completely at his mercy. Prima facie there appears no intention on the part of accused/respondents to cause death or Qatl-i-amd of the victim. The injuries have been found on the right foot ankle of the victim which is not vital part of the body. It is yet to be seen if the accused intended to kill the victim. The question of applicability of section 324 or that of 337-F(ii), P.P.C. is still to be determined at the trial stage after examination of the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The investigation has already been completed. No recovery whatsoever has been effected and challan of the case has already been submitted before the trial Court, thus, it would not be proper to send the accused behind the bars as it cannot serve any useful purpose, specially When there is no allegation of mis-exercise of concession of bail granted to the accused/respondents. The discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, Killa Abdullah at Chaman in granting post arrest bail to the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2 is not arbitrary or against the settled principle of law, hence does not require interference by this Court.
In view of the above discussion, the instant application being devoid of merits is dismissed.
It needs not to iterate that the observation made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not affect the merits of the case.