' TARIQ PARVEZ, J.-Three respondents are accused in case F.I.R. No,552, dated 15-6-1998 of Police Station, Kalu Khan registered on the complaint of Istikhar Ali.
' The respondents were allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail on 27-6-1998 which was later confirmed on 27-7-1998 by the learned Sessions Judge, Swabi. The complainant dissatisfied from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Swabi has filed the instant cancellation application.
2. The tussle between the parties is grounded on the fact that the complainant Istikhar Ali was serving in the Education Department where the three respondents are his administrative heads.
3. During his service as school teacher, the complainant is alleged to have joined law education classes and secured his LL.B Degree whereafter started practice at the bar in Swabi, but simultaneous he is alleged to have kept himself on the service of the Education Department and was drawing his salary from the Exchequer. Aurangzeb respondent likewise other two respondents is Class-I Officer in the Education Department, filed a complaint against the complainant before Provincial Bar Council which was referred to the Tribunal constituted under the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Act where the matter is pending adjudication. However, it appears from the record that the complainant has tendered his resignating from the Education Department and he stands terminated from his service on 9-10-1996.
' There are allegations and counter-allegations between the parties pending in different forum regarding misconduct, misbehavious, charges of corruption and discipline and misuse of powers.
4. The short history of the intangled litigation between the parties was necessitated to the referred above to show the inter se strained relations between them.
5. Coming to the facts of the present case, Istikhar Ali complainant reported to the police that on 15-6-1998 at 4-45 a.m. He alongwith his brothers Ijaz Ali, Ali Muhammad and Shahid Ali were sitting in their Hujra when Aurangzeb respondent armed with kalashinkov and hand-grenade alongwith respondents Jamandose and Habibullah duly armed with pistol entered the Hujra and started firing at the complainant from which the complainant escaped. Ijaz Ali brother of the complainant opened fire shot in retaliation on which the accused-respondents are said to have left the Hujra and were running away when Jamandose and Habibullah called Aurangzeb respondent to throw the hand-grenade which was accordingly done. The hand-grenade exploded and caused injuries to the complainant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that on the merits of the case the respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail muchless grant ,of pre-arrest bail. It was argued that the respondents are directly charged in the F.I.R. With specific role of firing attributed to them and that the motor car belonging to Jamanadose accused-respondent was later on taken into possession by the police and that carried a mark of bullet hole confirming the story of the complainant regarding firing made by Ijaz Ali on the accused-respondents when they were flewing away from the spot. Reference was also made to the alibi advanced by the accused-respondents where they have alleged to be in their respective villages at the time of occurrence and to which the police has opined that on the basis of such plea and on the basis of official status of the three respondents their participation in the crime is not expected. It was argued that in view of direct evidence of the eye-witnesses corroborated by large number of empties recovered from the spot and splinter of the hand-grenade from the hujra of the complainant a strong prima facie case is made out against the respondents.
7. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, opposed the cancellation of bail by stating that reasonable grounds exist to infer that the respondents have been falsely charged in the case.
8. Defending the bail before arrest the learned counsel for the respondents started with the submission that the criteria for allowing bail is different from the yardstick used for cancellation. It was argued that the learned Sessions Judge has written a detailed speaking order and have advanced reasons for allowing the concession of pre-arrest bail to the respondent. It was argued that notwithstanding the demerit of the case of the prosecution the plea of alibi raised by all the three respondents was verified by the police and it was opined that the respondents have been a falsely implicated.
' Much stress was placed on the existing strained relations between the parties with a chequered history where the complainant has been continuously making baseless complaints against the three respondents who were highly placed officers in the Education Department and against whom the complainant has personal grudges. It was argued that in view of case law laid down by the superior Courts the factum of ulterior motive for false implication of the accused-respondents very much existed, therefore, the grant of special concession in form of confirmation of pre-arrest bail was in course with settled principle. It was further argued that keeping in view the official status of the three respondents their arrest in a baseless case was definitely to cause harassment and would have humiliation the personality of the respondents.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have reproduced their submission in the preceding paras. We first take up the facts narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. The better is not to dilate in detail as it may not cause prejudice to the case of the complainant at the trial stage, suffice it to mention that initially the role of ineffective firing has been attributed to all the three respondents. However, in the latter, part of the F.I.R. Throwing of hand-grenade is attributed to respondent Aurangzeb. There are injuries on the person of the complainant on such part of the body which cannot be held to be self-inflected. There is also found a small ditch caused by the explosion of the grenade and splinters were also recovered from the site, therefore, the role of Aurangzeb respondent appears to be different than that of the two other respondents.
10. The plea of alibi though taken by all the three respondents but the same is oral and no definite opinion has been expressed by the police as to the innocence of the accused respondents. Had it been so the police would have placed the accused-respondents in column No,2 of the challan which we are told is ready.
11. No doubt that the principles of the grant of post-arrest bail and those applicable for pre-arrest bail are different but it is equally correct that once bail allowed by a Court of competent jurisdiction the same is not to be recalled in routine be it a post arrest bail or bail before arrest. The only significant difference for exercising of power under section 497 read with section 498, Cr.P.C.
Restricted by the judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan is to the extend that while seeking pre- arrest bail the accused must show not only the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence charge with but in addition must prove ulterior motive on the part of the complainant for bringing the charge. We are mindful of the fact that at bail stage it is but impossible to adduce evidence in support of ulterior motive of the complainant but some burden remains and duty cast on the accused to bring on record through documentation some material showing that ulterior intention of the complainant which must be highlighted or the mala fide intention of the complainant party is inferable from the prosecution file itself.
12. In this case as we have referred to the inter se strained relations of the parties and as we have also referred act of accused respondent Aurangzeb which is different that of the other respondents, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, Swabi has exercised proper discretion as for accused-respondents Jamandose and Habibullah are concerned but the treatment extended to Aurnagzeb respondent by placing him at par, the learned lower Court has erred both on facts and law.
' The net result of our above discussion is that the bail before arrest Order to the extent of respondents Jamandose and Habibullah is maintained whereas bail granted to Aurangzeb respondent is hereby cancelled. The respondent Aurangzeb is present in Court and is taken into custody by the police. He shall be produced before the competent Court for his remand as required under the law.