' Brief facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No,73, dated 10-2-1995 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Wah Cantt. On the report of Mst. Zohra Bibi against the two accused namely Nazir Ahmad and Abdul Khaliq.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R. Mst. Zohra Bibi, being issueless adopted Muhammad Asghar as a son, when he was aged of 5/6 months. When he coming to his youth, he married with one Mst. Musarat Bibi. Abdul Khaliq and Nazir Ahmad were not happy on this marriage. In order to take revenge, allegedly on the night of occurrence, when Muhammad Asghar had repatriated to Pakistan after serving in Saudi Arabia, he was done to death by Abdul Khaliq and Nazir Ahmad accused. Nazir Ahmad was armed with a pistol, he made two fires which hit Muhammad Asghar deceased, who fell down on the ground and died at the spot. While Abdul Khaliq accused raised only Lalkara. Thereafter both the accused ran away from the spot.
3. During investigation both the accused were arrested. Nazir Ahmad applied for bail which was refused by the trial Court. While Abdul Khaliq was granted bail vide order, dated 5-9-1995.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to Abdul Khaliq co-accused on the grounds that both the accused committed lurking house-trespass; that on the basis of the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. Both the accused have committed murder of Muhammad Asghar intentionally and with preplanning, as they came to the place of occurrence together; and that both are real brothers, as such, the motive is attributed to both of them.
5. On the other hand, cancellation of bail petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the accused/respondent. According to him, Abdul Khaliq accused/respondent has been attributed only Lalkara. He had not caused any injury to the deceased. The trial Court has rightly granted the bail after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. The bail order passed by the trial Court is not whimsical.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record minutely, especially order passed by the learned trial Court for granting bail to Abdul Khaliq, respondent No,
1. Admittedly, Abdul Khaliq was empty-handed. Only Lalkara has been attributed to him, which itself is sufficient to say, at this stage, that order passed by the learned trial Court is not liable to be set aside. Seeking cancellation of bail in the given circumstances is not appropriate.
Though the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some weight but when bail is granted and discretion is used by the Court of competent jurisdiction then some special circumstances are needed to set aside the bail order. There is nothing special in the order of the learned trial Court to be taken into consideration for interference. Hence the petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed.