RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.~ A case under section 302/34/364 PPC was registered against the respondents Nos. 1& 2 vide FIR No. 344 dated 26- 12-1996 at Police Station. Fateh Jang District Attock for the abduction and murder of a nephew of the petitioner/complainant namely Muhammad Rafiaz.
2. Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 applied' for post arrest bail in the Sessions Court, Attock. The bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fateh Jang, District Attock vide his order dated 16.7.1997, on the ground that both the respondents were declared innocent by three Investigating Officers and that the respondents were challaned in the light of 4th Investigation. It was held that it was a case of further inquiry as being a blind murder, the respondents aforesaid were linked with the occurrence on account of the fact that they had taken away the deceased on the pretext of hunting (shikar). The aforesaid deceased did not return whereupon both of them told the complainant that they should visit the garden near the Dam where the deceased used to go for plucking the oranges. The petitioner along with Ghulam Nabi and Umar Hayat went to the aforesaid garden where they found the dead body lying near the culvert.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail on the ground that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are nominated in the FIR; that all the PWs have persistently stated that the deceased had left the house in their company but did not return; that the dead body of the deceased was recovered, from near the garden, which was pointed out by the respondents on the ground that the deceased used to go there for plucking the fruit; that there was strong motive for Abdul Razzaq who suspected illicit relations of deceased with his wife Mst. Naureen; that final investigation linked the respondents with the occurrence for the murder of the deceased. Hence it Was prayed that there was no case of further inquiry, or investigation since the respondents have been challaned.
4. The learned counsel for respondents, however, defended the impugned order on the ground that all the PWs were inconsistent regarding the date of occurrence while appearing during 4th investigation. In that connect in, it was submitted that according to the PWs the occurrence had taken place on 23. 12.1996 whereas in the FIR the date of occurrence was given as 25-12-1996; that respondents were found innocent in three consecutive investigations which showed that the prosecution had a weak case from very start as it was a blind murder; that bail once granted cannot be cancelled until and unless the order is perverse, harsh or bad on the face of it.
5. The learned counsel for the State supported the petitioner on the same grounds which were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have considered the foregoing facts. It is not possible to enter into deeper appreciation of the merits of the case. It is enough to say that being a blind murder respondents having been admitted to bail in view of their innocence having been established through consecutive three investigations, it has become a case of further inquiry. Even otherwise it is well established law that bail once granted should only be cancelled if here are strong grounds to show that the order granting bail was patently illegal or based on conjectures. The other ground, which is recognised is that the concession of. Bail was misused by interfering with the investigation: threatening the witnesses or subverting the complainant side.
7. None of the foregoing grounds exist so as to call for cancellation of bails granted to respondents Nos. 1 & 2. The petition being merits is dismissed.