1. ' The respondents Nos.2 to 5 who are facing trial in Sessions Case No,451 of 1991 in the Court of Nth Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi under section 302/34, P.P.C. Q&D Ordinance were granted bail on 11-2-1992. The applicant, who is the complainant of F.I.R. No,251/91 of Police Station Kalakot, has approached this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents.
2. ' The facts as given by the applicant in the F.I.R. Lodged on 15-11-1991 are that on the day of incident at 10-30 a.m., while he was in the house, his son Ayaz went out to meet his maternal-uncle. The complainant heard fireshots in the street and when he came out he saw respondents Shakeel and Nadeem armed with pistols, respondent Abdur Rasheed armed with a rifle and Jameel armed with a Danda. The accused had surrounded Ayaz and were telling him that he had teased their sister but Ayaz was telling them that he had not done so. The respondents armed with fire-arms fired at Ayaz who fell down and subsequently died. The incident was witnessed by witnesses Banaras, Zarrin and Yaseen.
3. ' The contention of Mr. A.Q. Halepota, the learned Advocate for the applicant, is that the respondents are named in the F.I.R., are shown carrying fire-arms 'and Dandas and specific role of causing injuries to Ayaz is attributed to them. In these circumstances the learned trial Court ought not to have granted them bail. It is next contended that after the said incident and after grant of bail, the respondents abused the concession of bail and had attempted at the life of the complainant for which 4 separate reports were filed on different dates, copies whereof are flied as Annexures "C', "D", "E" and "F'. He has lastly argued that the facts stated by the applicant in this application have not been controverted by the respondents in their objections filed before this Court and as such the allegation against them that they have abused the concession of bail requires to be accepted as true. He has referred to 1981 SCMR 507 where the Honourable Supreme Court refused interference with the order of cancellation of bail by the High Court under similar circumstances. He then referred to 1979 SCMR 197, where the Honourable Supreme Court held that the prosecution version and eyewitnesses showing injuries on deceased caused in furtherance of common intention of all accused, all of them were vicariously liable for offence, the grant of bail by the High Court was held as not justified and the bail granted was cancelled.
4. ' He then referred to 1980 P Cr. L J 446, where this Court held that while grant of bail in cases not punishable with death or imprisonment for life appears to be a rule, bail shall be refused as a rule in cases punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the Court finds no ground to believe accused having committed such offence.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Azad, learned Advocate for the respondents, has argued that counter- F.I.R. No,253 of 1991 of the same incident was lodged although with some delay, the applicant Safdar Khan is accused in said F.I.R. And also in F.I.R. No,252 of 1991. At present there are three cases pending in the Court of with Additional Sessions Judge, who rightly held that it would be decided at the trial as to which party was the aggressor. It is also contended that in all the cases charge has been framed and are fixed for regular hearing. It is next contended that the 4 reports registered by the applicant is a manipulation when no such incident had taken place and the purpose of filing such reports was to make out a case for cancellation of ball. It is also contended that the trial Court was not moved by the applicant nor he filed copies of such reports so as to seek cancellation from the Court which granted bail. He referred to 1979 SCMR 479, where the Honourable Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to cancel bail on the basis of events taking place after the grant of bail and the view taken by the High Court in refusing such bail was held to be proper. He also referred to 1985 SCMR 1691, where the Honourable Supreme Court declined to interfere with grant of bail as the trial was to commence shortly.
6. ' MRs, Naveen Merchant, Advocate appearing for the State, has not supported the cancellation of bail and has adopted the arguments of respondents' learned Advocate.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates, and gone through the order of the learned trial Court and have also perused the case-law referred. The applicant, who is the complainant in case under section 302, P.P.C. Against the respondents is himself accused in two counter F.I.Rs, The view taken by the trial Court while granting bail to the respondents is based on correct appreciation of facts and law and needs no interference. The fact that there have been subsequent events showing conduct of the respondents or that they abused the concession of bail was not brought to the notice of the trial Court, who had the powers to cancel the bail granted by it.
8. Charge in all cases has been framed and trial is to commence very soon. In these circumstances, I do not think it proper to cancel the bail granted to the respondents. The application is accordingly dismissed.