' On 23-1-1989 at Police Station Abbasnagar a case under section 325/307/326/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Irshad, Muhammad Riaz, Rahim Bakhsh, Muhammad Afzal and Siraj Ahmad accused at the instance of Muhammad Hanif complainant. It was alleged that on the same day Muhammad Irshad accused, hereinafter called the respondent, took Muhammad Sharif P.W. With him to a `Maila' where later on he alongwith his co-accused, who were variously armed, surrounded him and launched a murderous assault on him as a result of which Muhammad Sharif aforesaid was seriously injured. The motive for the occurrence was that Muhammad Irshad respondent suspected that Muhammad Sharif P.W. Has illicit relations with his sister Mst. Manzoor Mai.
2. The respondent was arrested. He applied for his bail but his application was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 2-2-1989. He however, was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide order, dated 13-3-1989. Muhammad Hanif complainant has moved the instant petition under sections 439 and 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.
3. I have heard the parties' counsel and have gone through the record.
4. Medico-legal report shows that Muhammad Sharif P.W. Had suffered eight injuries in all out of which five had been caused with sharp-edged weapon, two with blunt weapon and one with a fire-arm. Three sharp-edged weapon injuries and the solitary fire-arm injury were declared dangerous to life.
5. In the F.I.R. The respondent has been shown to be armed with a Soti and only one blow is attributed to him which is said to have landed on the right temple of the injured P.W. According to the Medico-legal repert the injured P.W. Had suffered two blunt weapon injuries. One of these injuries was located on the right side of his face while the other is located on his right eye. It is not known as to which one of these injuries had been caused by the respondent. Anyhow both the injuries arc simple in nature. As such it can be said very safely that only a simple injury with a Soti is attributed to the respondent.
6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the respondent had observed that only a simple injury on non-vital part of the body of the injured P.W. Had been attributed to the respondent and that at the stage of bail question of vicarious liability could not be gone into as the same would tcntamount to deciding the case on merits.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant petitioner has contended that being the main accused in this case, as he had a motive against the injured P.W., the respondent was not entitled to bail but the same had been granted to him in total disregard of the principles of law and material available on record. He urged that the bail granted to the respondent be cancelled.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned counsel for the State opposed the application for cancellation of bail and defended the impugned order.
9. It is a well-settled principle that grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. As such superior Courts are always reluctant to cancel the bail unless good cause is shown. They arc very cautious in interfering with the discretion of the lower Courts. However, where it can be shown that the bail was granted in complete disregard of the law laid down by the superior Courts or the bail order was arbitrary and perverse, the superior Courts would not hesitate to intervene. Bail order can also be recalled if there has been any misrepresentation or suppression of real facts or the accused misuses the concession of hail granted to him.
10. In the present case there is no allegation that the respondent has' misused the concession of bail or he had obtained the impugned bail order through misrepresentation or suppression of real facts. I have also not been able to find out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acted in an arbitrary fashion or the reasons given by him in support of his decision were in any way perverse. On the contrary he has exercised his discretion in a judicial and judicious manner.
11. The respondent was armed with a Soli which is not a lethal weapon. Only a simple injury has been attributed to him which is not located on the vital part of s the body of the injured P.W. At bail stage it was too early to determine if the respondent was vicariously liable for the offence was (sic) recorded in the case.
' Furthermore, the respondent was lodged in the judicial lock-up and his person was not required for the purpose of investigation and no recovery was to be effected from him. As such his further detention in the judicial lock-up would not have served any useful purpose. All these facts were sufficient to make out a good case for the enlargement of respondent on bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly allowed bail to him. I do not feel inclined to interfere! With the impugned order.
12. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.