' This is a petition for the cancellation of bail under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Allowed to the respondents vide order, dated 25-8-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad in case F.I.R. No,45/92, dated 22-2-1992..
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after the dismissal of the bail of respondents vide order dated 9-6-1992, there was no fresh ground available to the respondents to invoke the jurisdiction of the same learned Judge for bail on the same facts, hence, ing order, dated 25-8-1992 is coram non judice and against the principle of law enunciated by the superior Courts. He has placed reliance on PLD 1956 SC 173, 1975 SCMR 3235, PLD 1978 Lah. 725 and 1983 SCM R 72. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the grant of bail on the ground of delay per se is not permissible under the law as according to the amended law, an accused person can be granted bail on statutory ground if his case is not decided within the stipulated period, hence, the Court cannot enlarge the accused on bail on the ground of delay unless their case falls within the stipulated period.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously urged that the case against the respondents is one of further enquiry because the medical examination of the prosecutrix reveals that she was habitual to intercourse and the witnesses are her close relations. The respondents were involved in this case on account of their enmity with one Shakeel who is a witness in a murder case against the complainant party. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the victim is not complainant of the case. The F.I.R. Was lodged after inordinate delay of two days which remained unexplained. The occurrence took place in the thickly populated area but no person from locality appeared as a witness. Both the alleged eye-witnesses are close relations as well as chance witnesses. He further submitted that the medical evidence was produced before the learned trial Judge at the time of seeking bail vide second bail application, hence, this evidence per se was a fresh ground which can confer the jurisdiction upon the Additional Sessions Judge, so the order cannot be termed as without jurisdiction or coram non judice. In the end, he submitted that in view of the present material referred above, the case against the respondents is one of further enquiry, so they were entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of right irrespective of the fact that they are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause, and the ing order by the learned Judge is neither perverse nor fanciful, hence, the respondents were rightly admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Without going deeper into the appreciation of evidence available on record, I find that the trial Court exercised its discretion in a sound and proper manner because the material so far available on the record makes the case of the prosecution one of further enquiry. The ing order in these circumstances cannot be termed as fanciful, arbitrary or contrary to the record, hence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. This petition is dismissed.
Pettition dismissed.