Through this application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 2 to 15 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala, in cross-version registered at Police Station Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala, for offences under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/337-L(2)/440/447/51 1/148/149, PPC in case FIR No. 312/2020 dated 18-04-2020.
2. Briefly , the allegation case against Respondents No. 2 to 15 is that on 18-04 -2020 at about 08:30 a.m. they attempted to dispossess the Petitioner from his cattle-Shed and while doing so injured him, Muhammad Asif and Shahid Ali.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Petitioner Umar Farooq claimed that he received three injuries in the incident. The Medical Board has opined that there is a possibility of fabrication of Injury No. 1 which was Shajjah-i-Mudihah. On the other hand, Injuries No. 2 & 3 were Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah falling within the ambit of Section 337-F(i), PPC. The said offence is bailable.
5. Asif is alleged to have received four injuries. Injury No. 2 was found suspect. Injuries No. 3 & 4 were declared Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah which attrac t Section 337-F(i) PPC and the offence is bailable. On the other hand, Injury No. 1 is not attributed to Respondents No. 2 to 15. The question of their vicarious liability for the said injury can only be determined during the trial after recording the evidence.
6. In view of the fact that Injury No. 1 of the Petitioner and Injury No. 2 of Asif have been found suspect, the cross- version has become doubtful. As a result, further inquiry is required to determine guilt of Respondents No. 2 to 15 even in respect of the of fence under Section 440 PPC.
7. It is trite that considerations for grant of bail are-dif ferent from those for cancellation of bail. Generally , bail granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction is not cancelled unless the bail granting order is perverse or there is an allegation that the accused has misused the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has only urged that the bail granting order is perverse but has not been able to persuade this Court about it. He did not argue the other ground. In Aamir Bashir and another v. State and another (PLJ 2018 SC 445), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held: "The powers and jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court to grant pre-arrest bail are co-extensive.
The High Court does not act as an Appellate Court in such matters. Therefore, once pre-arrest bail is granted by Sessions Court for cogent reason, palpa ble on record then, the High Court has to show maximum restraint in recalling the same unless the bail granting order is shown to be absolutely perverse or has been granted in disregard of the settled principles regulating the grant or refusal to grant such bail."
8. This application has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.