' This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Yousaf respondent by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore on 15-4-1987, in case under section 302/307/34, PPC. Registered at Police Station Shad Bagh vide FIR No,209/86 dated 4-9-1986.
2. The prosecution case is that the respondent No,1 and three others, variously armed, in furtherance of their common intention, launched murderous assault on Muhammad Mahmood, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif and caused the death of Muhammad Mahmood and injuries to Muhammad Ramzan PW.
3. As for respondent. No,1, it has been alleged that he was armed with 7 M.M. Rifle; that he alongwith Javed co-accused dragged Muhammad Mahmood deceased to a nearby hotel where Javed co- accused gave second dagger blow on the left side of his chest and that the respondent also tried to give a butt blow to Muhammad Sharif complainant but it hit the wall and resultantly the rifle was broken.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient overt act has been attributed to the respondent; that he was not only armed with 7 M.M. Rifle but also dragged the deceased to a hotel and also attempted to give a butt blow to the complainant; that the eye-witnesses named in the FIR have supported the allegations against him and that the opinion of the police with regard to the innocence of the respondent is not binding on the courts.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the respondent having been found innocent, his name was placed in column No,2 of the challan; that the A.S.P. Who conducted the investigation came to the conclusion that the respondent was not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence; that he did not cause any injury to the ,deceased or t the P.Ws. That no weapon has been recovered from him; that although he was allegedly armed with 7 M.M. Rifle yet he did not fire at the deceased or the P.Ws. And that in any case, the question of the vicarious liability needs further enquiry. It is well-settled that considerations for the grant of bail and cancellation of the same are altogether different and once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, strong grounds would be required for interfering with the discretion exercised by it, which I do not see in the case in hand.
' For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed in limine.