1. ' This application for cancellation of bail has been moved on behalf of applicant/complainant Loung against the accused/respondent Yar Ali, who is involved in a case registered against him under section 302/336/34, P.P.C. As Crime No,92 of 1991 at Police Station Tangwani.
2. ' The hail application on behalf of accused/respondent Yar Ali had been moved before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, who by his order, dated 30th January, 1992, granted bail to him.
3. ' Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case, are that on 30-7-1991, complainant Loung lodged report with the police, stating therein that he along his brother Karam Ali, cousins Abdul Kareem and Nazar Ali resides together on the same house. The house of Yar Ali, who is their cousin, is about furlong away from there. On the preceding night, Yar Ali came and called Karam Ali out of his house at about 10 p.m. Complainant alongwith Karam Ali, Nazar Ali and Abdul Karim went out from the house, and found that Yar Ali, having gun in his hand, was standing there. He told them that his mother was ill, and he wanted to take her to the hospital and wanted some assistance. They all went to the house of Yar Ali and there they found Hafizullah and Amanullah, brothers of Yar Ali present armed with Lathis, while Rahmatullah was present there armed with hatchet. They also challenged the complainant party that Karam Ali was on illicit terms with Mst. Pari, the wife of Yar Ali, and saying so Rahmatullah and Hafizullah aimed hatchet and Lathi on them and asked them to stay away and not to raise cries, and, thereafter, Yar Ali, and Amanullah dragged Karam Ali and threw him on the cot. Accused/ respondent Yar Ali fired directly at Karam Ali and then, he fired shot at Mst. Pari, who was lying on another cot. He then fired shot in the air and went out of his house.
4. Karam Ali and Mst. Pari died at the spot.
5. ' Co-accused made an application for bail to this Court. My late brother, Allah Dino Memon, J.
6. Granted bail to them vide order dated 23-10-1991. In that order, he has made certain observations on the merits of this case. In view of the above observations, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, granted bail to the accused/respondent Yar Ali.
7. ' It has been contended that accused/respondent Yar Ali is the man who had fired on both the deceased and killed them. It has also been submitted that accused/respondent Yar All is abusing the concession of bail, as he is holding out threats of dire consequences, to the complainant.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that mother of the complainant namely Mst. Pecrozan made such application to S.P. Jacobabad, but no action was taken by him into the matter. It has also been submitted that Mst. Peerozan and Loung have filed affidavits to the above effect before this Court.
9. ' On behalf of the respondent/accused, it is submitted that co-accused were granted bail by this Court and on the basis of the observations made in that order, the learned Judge granted bail to the respondent/accused. It is pointed out that observations made by my learned brother late Allah Dino Memon, J. Were for the limited purpose of the disposal of that bail application. He had made clear that: "In the present case there is no allegation that any of the applicants had caused any injury to the two deceased, and it is yet to be seen as to how far the prosecution story is to be relied upon, and therefore, I am of the considered view that a case for bail has been made out."
10. The trial Court was, therefore, required to take into consideration the allegations levelled against the accused Yar Ali. The F.I.R. And state dents of the witnesses show that accused/respondent committed murder of both the deceased persons by firing shots from the gun on them. It is, therefore, clear that respondent/accused has been .Attributed the specific role in the commission of the offence. Whether it was natural for the accused to have taken with himself, the P.Ws., to his house when allegedly he intended to kill Karam Ali, is a point, which cannot be resolved at this stage. Nothing has been shown that the complainant party has any reason to implicate the accused/respondent falsely in this case. As to the allegation that the accused/respondent had stated that Karam Ali was `Karo' with his wife and, therefore, he killed them will not entitle the accused to bail because this is not a case of the prosecution that he had lost his self-control, and because of sudden and grave provocation, he committed the alleged crime. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has relied on 1977 SCMR 469 that in case it was held that where the discretion exercised by Sessions Judge was not found injudicious or improper, the interference by cancelling the bail was not warranted.
11. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has referred 1989 SCMR 239.
12. The cancellation of bail .Has also been sought on the ground that respondent has held out threats of dire consequences to complainant party. Affidavits have also been filed by Mst. Peerozan and Loung. Learned counsel referred Mst. Saira Bibi v. Allah Bux and others 1987 P Cr. L J 1943 in support of his contentions. Respondent/accused has not filed any affidavit in denial of the allegations which have been levelled in the affidavit, by Mst. Peerozan and Loung.
13. ' Having considered all the aspects of this case, I have concluded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not taken into consideration the merits of this case, and that there is also allegation against the respondent/accused that he has abused the concession of bail.
14. I, therefore, accepting the prayer of the complainant, set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent/accused and cancel the by him, to the respondent.
15. Respondent/accused is present on bail. He may be taken into custody and sent to jail.
16. Bail cancelled.