' Respondents Nos.1 to 3 namely, Zulfiqar Ali son of Suba Khan, Suba Khan son of Muhammad Afzal and Zawar Hussain son of Mehrban, caste Bloch, Residents of Bhutesar Sharqi, Tehsil and District D.I.
Khan, stand charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 324/34, P . P. C .
Vide F.I.R. No,38, dated 11-3-1998, registered at Police Station Paroa, Tehsil and District D.I. Khan, at the instance of petitioner/complainant Naimatullah son of Nazar Hussain, who also belongs to the same village.
2. When arrested the contesting respondents approached the Court of Civil Judge-II/Judicial Magistrate, D.I. Khan (Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan) for the grant of bail. Respondent No,1 was granted bail by the Civil Judge-II vide his order, dated 11-4-1998 whereas respondents Nos.2 and 3 were granted bail by the said Judicial Magistrate on 20-4-1998.
3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said two orders, dated 11-4-1998 and 20-4-1998, approached the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan (Syed Rafique Hussain Shah) for the redress of his grievance and prayed before him that the bails granted to the respondents may be recalled. The Sessions Judge sent the said petition to the Additional Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan (Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan) for disposal, who vide his single order, dated 20-7-1998, while concurring with the findings of the Judicial Magistrate, rejected the bail cancellation application.
4. Hence the present petition, alleging that the orders of the lower forums being perverse/arbitrary are liable to be set aside and the respondents be arrested and sent to jail.
5. Mr. Ghulam Hurr Khan, Advocate for the petitioner, accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3 in person, along with their counsel Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, and Syed Saeed Hassan Sherazi, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
6. It was held in the following cases that the bail cancellation application A may not be accepted when the challah is either complete or ripe for submission in the trial Court. The relevant parts of the said judgments are reproduced:--
(1) Mst. Irshad Begum v. Muhammad Afzal and another 1985 SCM R 1691 "----S. 302---Petitioner seeking cancellation of bail allowed by High Court to accused---Trial commencing shortly---Supreme Court declined to interfere."
(2) Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 "----S. 302---Cancellation of bail--Trial was to commence within a fortnight---Cancellation of bail at such stage, held, would not be proper."
(3) Mian Dad v. The State and another 1992 SCM R 1418 "----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Supreme Court, ordinarily would not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to bail, particularly in cases of murder, when the trial was going to commence so as to avoid discussion and remarks on the merits of the case."
7. Accordingly by following the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I would dismiss this petition. Order accordingly.
8. I may also remark here, before parting with the judgment, that I had also refused to cancel the bail in cases where the order of the Sessions Court for releasing the accused on bail was neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, needed no interference. The said orders were recorded in the following cases:--
(1) Muhammad Yaqoob v. Akbar Ali 1996 PCr.LJ 1371 "----S. 324/34---Cancellation of bail---Reasons given by Sessions Court for releasing the accused on bail being cogent and neither arbitrary nor perverse, needed no interference---Case of accused was one of further inquiry and they had been rightly allowed bail---Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly."
(2) Diyar Khan v. Said Khan 1998 PCr.LI 798 "----S.302/324/34---Bail, cancellation of---Reasons adduced by Sessions Judge for granting bail to accused were justified as same were also supported even by the prosecution version, especially the version given in F.I.R.---Sessions Judge had given cogent/valid reasons for extending concession of bail to accused and bail granting order was neither arbitrary nor perverse---Such order could not be interfered with because when bail was granted by competent Court same could not be easily recalled as a matter of routine, in the absence of solid reasons showing that same was either obtained through misrepresentation/suppression of facts or that concession of bail was misused to hamper/obstruct course of fair investigation----Petition for cancellation of bail having no substance, was rejected in circumstances."