1. SYED SHAHID BAHAR, J. The above titled revision petition has been directed against the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, whereby interim bail of the accused-respondents was confirmed.
2. Brief facts forming background of the instant revision petition are that a case bearing FIR No.306/22 under sections 324, 452, 353, 337AF, 430, 186, 427, 147, 148, 149 APC and Section 20 of EHA was registered against the accused-respondents along with other co-accused at Police Station Rawlakot on 16.09.2022. After registration of the case, the accused-respondents herein filed pre- arrest bail application before Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Rawalakot, which was initially allowed and later on was confirmed through the impugned order dated 20.03.2023, hence, this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned A.A.G for the State; and gone through the record of the case with care.
4. It may be stated here that bail matters are to be decided in the light of the material collected by police during investigation of the case. Credibility, scrutiny and truthfulness of the witnesses are to be adjudged by the trial Court at the time of the appreciation of evidence after conclusion of trial.
5. This Court while deciding bail application(sic) section 161, Cr.P.C or by the Court and other incriminating material brought by the prosecution including the recoveries etc. are to be taken into account.
6. From tentative assessm ent of the record reveals, that the allegation leveled against the accused/respondents along with other co-accused is that they entered in the office of the complainant (Passport office, Rawalakot), locked the door of office, hit the complainant with fist, kicks and iron clips; and while picking stapler, LED and other things from the table also hit the same at his head, face, they also broke the official furniture and tore the official documents. A cursory perusal of police record slows that the accused/respondents are not required for recovery or investigation. Whether the accused/respondents are involved in the alleged occurrence or not?
7. This is a matter of further probe. Furthermore, the record shows that the complainant is also involved in making fake and bogus passport and he is also required by the police in the case while he is also fugitive from law. The case of the accused, respondents is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned bail confirmation order passed by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Rawalakot is in accordance with law, which in my considered view needs no indulgence by this Court. It is settled principle of law that once the bail is granted to the accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction, very strong grounds and reasons are to be required to cancel the same. The petitioner has failed to raise any plausible reason to cancel the bail confirming order of the accused/respondents. No illegality, irregularity or perversity has been found in the impugned bail order, thus, the bail confirmation order passed by the court below in, favour of the accused/respondents stands upheld.
8. Normally concession of bail granted in favour of the accused is not taken back in routine and Courts of law remain slow to undo the bail order issued in favour of the accused at random.
9. (Underlining for emphasizes)
10. Nub of the above is that I do not find any substance in this revision petition, therefore, the petition stands dismissed.