' Sharif Khan, petitioner, has moved this application for cancellation of bail of Seenar. Gul, accused- respondent, in case F.I.R. No,85, dated 1-8-1980 of Police Station Karak, wherein he was charged alongwith his co-accused Sahib Gul (now acquitted) for committing the murder of Muhammad Khan deceased and effectively firing at and seriously injuring the present petitioner.
2. The accused-respondent was arrested on 27-5-1989. After his arrest he moved the Court of Illaqa Magistrate for bail and the learned E.A.C. Revenue/M.I.C. Karak vide order dated 19-6-1989 granted bail to the accused-respondent. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed bail cancellation application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karak but the same was rejected vide order dated 18-7- 1989. Hence this petition for cancellation of bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
4. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused-respondent remained absconder for a long period of about 9 years and he being a fugitive from law for such a long time was not entitled to be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent argued that trial of the accused-respondent has already commenced and the case was previously fixed for the evidence but as the case file was requisitioned by this Court, therefore, the case is now fixed for 12-11-1989. He, therefore, urged that it would not be proper to cancel the bail of the accused-respondent at such a stage.
5. Admittedly, it is the consistent view of the superior Courts that when thel A trial of an accused is commenced or is to commence shortly then interference with the order of bail would not be proper. There is a number of authorities on this point, and I would like to reproduce some of the authorities which are relevant for the disposal of this petition.
1985 SCMR 1691: "Section 302-- Petitioner seeking cancellation of bail allowed by High Court to accused--Trial commencing shortly-Supreme Court declined to interfere "
1988 SCM R 1129: "Section 497(5)--Bail, cancellation of-- to accused by High Court in 1985 on wrong ground-- Possibility existing that accused either had stood his trial or that his trial was to commence soon-- Order granting bail to accused maintained on ground other than one given by High Court."
PLD 1989 SC 585: "Section 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Cancellation of hail--Trial was to commence within a fortnight--Cancellation of bail at such a stage held, would not be proper."
' In an unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 417 of 1988, decided on 2-11- 1988, the Honourable Chief Justice has rejected the petition for cancellation of bail by observing as under:-- "The case of the acquitted accused is not distinguishable from that of the respondent. Earlier all the prosecution evidence was discarded and, therefore, it was found to be insufficient to bring home guilt to the acquitted accused. In such an eventuality absconding per se would not make it a case for recall of order of acquittal."
6. Thus, the discretion exercised by the learned Courts below by granting bail to the accused- respondent in this case cannot be interfered with at this stage merely on the ground of ascendance. The trial of the accused-respondent has already commenced and the case is fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence in the next month. Hence the petition in hand is rejected.
The office is, however, directed to send the record of the case to the concerned trial Court immediately so as to expedite the trial.
Petition rejected.