ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.----The applicant/ complainant filed an application under Section 497(5), Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail of private respondent with the prayer: "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of submissions made hereinabove the bail granting order dated 7.4.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in criminal Bail application No. 98 of 2020 may kindly be revoked and respondent No. I/accused be put behind the bars, in the interest of justice, fairplay and equity ."
2. The concise facts ,of the case are that on 26th September , 2019 case FIR No. 122 of 2019, under Sections 302, 324 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, read with Sections 427, 147, 148, 149 Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) was registered with Police Station Kharootabad Quetta on the report of SI/SHO Fayyaz Hussain Shah against respondent No.1 and others alleging therein that on the said date at 10:30 a.m. he received information to the effect that firing is going on between the two groups at Karez Gulganj near Killi Gawadar . On which he reached there and came to know that people of Shamozai and Badezai tribes were fighti ng with each other and making firing due to which Haji Ameer and Allah Gul belonging to Shamorai tribe received injuries, while Muhammad Farooq belongs to Badezai tribe succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas Sardar Ali and Abdul Jabbar received serious injuries. The motive was alleged to be the landed dispute between the parties.
3. After registration of case respondent No. 1/ accused was arrested and subjected to investigation. The respondent No. 1/ accused moved an application for grant of post arrest bail before Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Quetta, which was rejected vide order dated 9th March, 2020. Thereafter , respondent No. 1/ accused approached this court and this court vide order dated 7th April, 2020 granted bail to the respon dent No. 1/ accused, hence the applicant has filed instant application for cancellation of the same.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent No. 1/ accused has misused the concession of bail while extending threat s to the witnesses. This court has granted bail to the respondent No. 1/ accused on the basis of cross version which is not according to law. The respondent No. 1/ accused was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The medical evidence duly corroborated the contention of the complainant. The crime is heinous in nature. The learned counsel placed reliance on Arif Din v. Amil Khan 2005 SCMR 1402 , Nasir Muhammad Wassan v. The State 1992 SCMR 501, Jan Muhammad v. The State 1990 SCMR 320, Inamullah v. Qudratullah alias Qudrati 2014 MLD 1425 and Sardar Munir Ahjmed Dollar v. The State PLD 2004 Karachi 822.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ accused strongly opposed the contention of the applicant and stated that the statements of alleged ocular witnesses were recorded with the delay without any plausible explanation. This court has rightly granted bail to the respondent No. 1/ accused. The learned counsel further contended that once a court of competent jurisdiction granted bail then strong grounds/ reasons required for cancellation of the same. He placed reliance on Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 and Sobharo v.
Zameer 2012 PCr .LJ 1722.
6. Heard and perused the record. The record transpires that this court vide order dated 7th April 2020 granted bail to the respondent No.1/ accused. It appears that two separate reports under Section 173, Cr.P.C., have been submitted against the opposite/rival group, whereas the trial court granted bail to Allah Gul and Shahi Khan as mentioned in the order of this court.
7. It is settled principle in criminal jurispru dence that in case of cross version bail is to be granted on the basis of further inquiry . The principle for granting bail and those for cancellation of bail is altogether different. Strong and cogent reasons required for recalling of bail granting order . For instance if the bail granting order is perverse or disregard to the settled principle regulating grant of bail. The learned counsel for the applicant unable to put forth any of the above settled principle governing the cancellation of bail. In reported case Sobharo v. Zameer 2012 PCr.LJ 1722 ,- it was held: "11. 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 perfunctionary in, nature. Once bail has been granted, the prosecution shou ld 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 an individual hence it must not be resorted to lightly and power to take back in custody is to be exercised with due care and circumspection. I am also fortified by the dictums laid down by the honourable Supreme Court reported in 2009 SCMR 786, 2004 SCMR 1160, 2005 SCMR 1539 , 1994 SCMR 1064 and 2004 SCMR 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 cancelling 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. Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., prohibits the grant of bail for offenses punishable with death or imprisonment of 10 years or over. Section 497(5). Cr. P. C. does not command the court to cancel the bail even when the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and even if the grant of bail is prohibited under section 497(1 ), Cr.P.C, the discretion is left in the court under section 497(5); Cr.P.C. Which is pari meteria with the principles which apply to the setting aside of the orders of acquittal."
8. The Honorable Supreme Court held in case Muhammad Azhar v . Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 .
"6. It needs no reiteration that considerations for the grant of bail are quite distinct from the consideration for cancellation of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancelling the same, as held by this Court on a number of occasions . It is to be seen as to whether order granting bail is patently , illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Considering the case of the respondent for grant of bail on the above touchstone, we are of the view that learned High Court has rightly reached the conclusion and no exception can be taken to it. The respondent is on bail since 26-1-2009 and he is not shown to have misused the concession of bail. He is entitled to remain on bail "
The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguished.
In view of the above the order passed by this court is not needed to be interfered. In such circumstances the application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.