' Through the instant bail cancellation application, the petitioner Dilawar Shah has sought the cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No,1 in case F.I.R. No,47, dated 7-7-1999 registered under section 337-F(iv)/34, P.P.C., wherein besides the petitioner his brother namely Amir Shah was also charged for the offence.
2. The epitomical sketch of the instant petition is that on 7-7-1999 on the report of the petitioner a case as mentioned above was registered against the respondent and his co-accused namely Amir Shah charging them for causing injuries to the complainant with some sharp-edged weapon.
In the said case both the accused absconded after the occurrence and proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C. Were carried out against them. Subsequently, pre-arrest bail application was made before the learned Sessions Judge and during its pendency on the intervention of the elders of the area a compromise was affected between the parties on the condition that the accused would not further harm the complainant party and his family members. On such an assurance of maintaining peaceful atmosphere the petitioner did not object to the grant of anticipatory bail which was consequently, allowed. The record shows that after his release on bail another incident took place on 2-11-1999 and a case was registered under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,76 in the same police station wherein the respondent No,1 was charged for causing injuries to the complainant Anwar Shah with a knife. Record of the said case has also been requisitioned in connection with the instant application.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that respondent No,1 has misused the concession of bail allowed to him on the basis of compromise during which he had given assurance of remaining peaceful and would abstain from causing any harm to the complainant party. The subsequent event which took place on 2-11-1999 is a clear proof that the respondent No,1 has misused the concession of bail notwithstanding his assurance which is contrary to the very concept of bail and in such a situation, he has disentitled him to enjoy the concession of bail any more.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 has opposed the bail cancellation application and has stated that the subsequent F.I.R. Is based on mala fide and the injuries caused to Anwar Shah complainant of the case are self-inflicted and it is a device manufactured for depriving the respondent from enjoying his liberty. He made reference to certain affidavits of the residents of the village and stated that people of the village have stated that no such occurrence has taken place in the village and as the village of the parties is a small one and if any incident takes place, the entire village get knowledge of the said event. Therefore, the event was described as false. He further, contended that the injuries caused to the complainant Anwar Shah in the subsequent case are on the non-vital part of the body but were caused on the finger of his right hand and as such according to the learned counsel, the offence is not of a serious nature so as to make it a justification for the cancellation of bail.
5. The learned State Counsel has also not supported the bail cancellation application on the ground that the Investigating Officer has expressed some doubt regarding the genuineness of the subsequent event.
6. I have heard the rival arguments of both the sides and anxiously gone through the record of both the cases. The respondent is directly nominated in the F.I.R. No,76 for causing injury to the complainant with a knife. The medical report goes in line with the version of the complainant wherein injury No,1 is described as incised wound on the dorsal surface of the left thumb 2" x muscle deep (bone exposed). Besides the injured complainant, the occurrence was supported by P.W. Dilawar Shah, the brother of the complainant. It is a noticeable feature of the case that regarding the previous incident the parties had reached to a compromise which was made the basis of confirmation of pre-arrest bail of the accused. Thus, apparently there remains no reason for manufacturing false ground for the cancellation of bail of the respondent. Moreover, in the previous case two accused were granted bail, i,e, the present respondent and the other was his brother Amir Shah, but in the subsequent case only Nadir Shah has been charged against whom only this bail cancellation application has been moved and this visible feature of the case confirms the straightforwardness of the complainant and prima facie speaks about the genuineness of the charge.
7. It is a settled statement of law that while enlarging the accused on bail the Court reposes the confidence in the accused that he shall not misuse the liberty which was granted to him by way of exercising the discretion in his favour. The accused is required not to betray the confidence of the Court and in case of betrayal of such confidence, the accused person renders himself disentitle to enjoy the concession of bail. In the instant case, the registration of the second case at least speaks about the flagrant misuse of the bail allowed to the respondent and as such he has disentitled himself to remain on bail.
8. Consequently, I accept this bail cancellation application and recall the bail allowed to the accused/respondent No,1. He is present in Court, taken into custody and committed to the judicial lock-up. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that trial of the case has been started wherein the next date of hearing is 8-6-2000, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months. The office is also directed to send record of the case forthwith to the trial Court. Needless to mention that may above observations are tentative in nature for the purpose of disposal of the instant application and shall not influence the mind of the trial Court in any manner.