' Accused-respondents Nos.1 and 2 were charged by the petitioner Gul Qias for murder of his son namely Jehanzeb. They approached. The Court of learned Special Judge, Karak for their release on bail which was allowed to them vide order, dated 19-7-2000. The complainant has now moved this Court for cancellation of their bail granted vide order, dated 19-7-2000.
2. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the occurrence took place at Sham Qaza Wela which never means that the dark of the night had fully fallen, but instead it, would indicate that the light of the evening was still available in'which the accused- respondents could be identified and they had shaken hands with the complainant near the house of Gul Sharif and had exchanged good wishes with each other, therefore, the complainant as well as Sher Muhammad, the eye-witness had seen the occurrence at hand distance.
3. It was further argued that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Because the village of he deceased is situated at a distance of about 15 kilometres from the police station. He was first taken to Police Station Domail, where his report was not registered and he was directed to lodge report at Karak; that the learned Special Court did not appreciate the abovementioned position while enlarging the accused-respondents on bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The was admittedly lodged with the .Delay of 6 hours and it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. That the deceased in injured condition was taken to his house, wherehe breathed his last. The dead body was taken to police station where the report was lodged. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has not been properly explained in the F.I.R. And the explanation, if any would be given by the complainant during the trial.
5. So far as the identity of the accused-respondents is concerned, the site plan shows that the complainant and the accused were at a distance of 55 to 57 paces and the time of occurrence shows that little darkness had fallen. From the place of occurrence and the place where the accused-respondents were shown, the identity becomes doubtful and the learned Special Judge while rightly appreciating the facts of the case exercised his discretion in accordance with law. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is neither perverse, nor arbitrary, nor fanciful and the same has not been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. There is no allegation that the accused- respondents have misused the concession of bail, therefore, I am not inclined to cancel the bail granted to accused-respondents by a competent Court, more specially when there are no extraordinary circumstances to interfere with the bail granting order.
' Resultantly, the application is dismissed in limine.