Munir Khan respondent No. 1, was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, vide this order dated 10-4-1994. The said respondent is involved in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No.235 dated 22-12-1993 registered at Police Station Safdarabad.
2. Through the under-consideration petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Rana Iftikhar Ahmad seeks the cancellation of bail of the respondent.
3. According to the F.I.R. The respondent and his co-accused while variously armed caused injuries to Rashid Ahmad, who succumbed to the injuries. The respondent was alleged to be armed with a Sota and had given a blow with it on the left thigh of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent procured the bail order by giving wrong date of his birth and placing reliance on the school leaving certificate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the respondent as less than 16 years of age and granted him bail. In this connection learned counsel placed reliance on the birth certificate according to which the respondent was born on 13-4-1977. He further contended that, the respondent alongwith his co- accused caused merciless beating to the deceased, who was 70 years of age, hence the respondent committed heinous crime and his case does not fall within the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. And his bail be cancelled.
5. The learned Law Officer appearing for the State half-heartedly supported the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the only injury attributed to him is injury No. 16, which is an abrasion; his elders took part in the crime and possibility cannot be ruled out that the respondent might have been involved due to the act of his elders, hence the case against him is one of further inquiry and the bail granting order cannot be termed as fanciful, unjust or contrary to the record so the bail may not be cancelled.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the respondent as per birth certificate is more than 16 years of age but perusal of the order shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to the respondent took two points into consideration; one his age the other the injury attributed to him is an abrasion.
The considerations for the grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail are altogether different. In order to cancel a bail already granted to an accused person, the Court has to see whether the bail granting order is unjust, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law or not. The facts mentioned above disclose that the order cannot be said to be unjust, fanciful or contrary to law, as the injury ascribed to the respondent is a mere abrasion and the case against him falls within the ambit of further inquiry, as it would be determined after recording a detailed evidence whether the respondent actually shared the common object with the co-accused or not, hence there is no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.