' Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No,13, dated 17-6-2000 under sections 420/468/471/201 and 511, P.P.C. Read with sections 4/23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 at Police Station Crime Branch, Peshawar the accused-respondent applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge who allowed the bail petition and directed the release of the accused-respondent vide order, dated 26-8-2000. The complainant has now moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the learned Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge through in hand.
2. Complainant Syed Mehmood Mohayuddin Gillani on 20-3-2000 reported that one Haji Muhammad son of Itbar Khan had made a false claim of huge money in Dollars against him before A.P.A. Kurram Agency on the basis of forged deed. An enquiry under . Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.
Was conducted which transpired that neither the deed writer had scribed the deed nor the stamp vendor had sold the stamp paper. The marginal witnesses of the said deed also did not support its execution when examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. A case was, therefore, registered under the abvoementioned section of law.
3. Mr. Suhail Akhtar, Advocate the learned counsel representing the petitioner/complainant argued that during the enquiry conducted under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The prosecution agency had recorded statements of Muhammad Yousaf stamp vendor, Salimullah deed writer, Hamish Gul and Muhammad Idris marginal witnesses of the alleged deed, who did not support the alleged deed produced by respondent. It was also argued that the Courts below did not appreciate the facts of the case while enlarging the accused-respondent on bail, therefore, the order of the Court below is arbitrary and not based on facts, hence needs interference.
4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Asghar Kundi, the learned counsel representing the respondent argued that it is a case of further enquiry and no extraordinary circumstances exist to cancel the bail granted by a competent Court of law. The accused-respondent has not misused the concession of bail.
5. Mr. Muhammad Habib Qureshi, the learned counsel representing the State supported the bail cancellation application and adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, added that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the statements of witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. While enlarging the accused- respondent on bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is yet to be proved during the trial as to whether the alleged deed dated 12-4-1992 is forged one or not. Most of the sections of law made applicable in the case are either bailable or entail punishment for seven years, which do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
And grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule while refusal is an exception. The accused-respondent has not misused the concession of bail and there is no allegations of tampering with the evidence or false averments or any other valid ground for cancellation of bail having been shown in the application. The bail granting order is neither arbitrary, nor perverse, nor fanciful, nor has been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The learned trial Court has properly exercised discretion vested in it. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Resultantly, the application in hand is dismissed.