' Through this application under section 497(5) Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail, granted to respondent No,2 vide order dated 28-9-2000 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lahore, in case F.I.R. No, 272 registered on 5th of June, 1999 under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. Read with section 8 of Qazf Ordinance, at Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore.
' The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Samina Shafi petitioner moved an application to S.H.O Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore, alleging therein that about 2 years ago, Malik Israr respondent No,2, who was her maternal uncle in relationship used to visit her house and had also kept bad eye on her. This fact came to her knowledge when respondent No, 2 along with his one friend had -detained her minor children in the house and in order to release them blackmail the complainant and took the complainant in the mosque along with the lap baby and got her signatures on the Nikah Nama by force. The complainant after receipt of the children filed suit for jactitation of marriage which is pending in the Court of Judge Family Court. Malik Israr pronounced that the complainant was his wife and she had performed matrimonial life with him and husband of the complainant had already divorced the complainant. On this, the complainant filed Writ Petition No,23921 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore on which this Court directed the police officer to inquire into the matter. In the meanwhile, Malik Israr respondent No, 2 in connivance with his friend Musharraf Khan got recorded forged arbitration proceedings for effecting divorce between Muhammad Shabbir and the complainant and also got entered Nikah Nama before the Registrar on which the signatures of the complainant were obtained by force and also levelled allegations that matrimonial life being lived by the complainant and her husband Muhammad Shabbir is actually commission of Zina with each other. Malik Israr and his friend Musharraf Khan are responsible for all these acts as they had connived with each other and obtained false report from Gulberg Police, then on the direction of this Court and on the instructions of S.P. Cantt, D.S.P. Civil Line and A.S.P. Cantt, Circle conducted inquiry and the services of the handwriting expert were also obtained and it was found that the report was forged one, hence, the case was registered against respondent No, 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bail has been granted merely on the ground that the petitioner had sworn affidavit in favour of the accused/respondent No, 2 that she has no objection if the bail is granted to him. These facts cannot be taken into consideration by the learned Judicial Magistrate as the offences do not fall within the category of compoundable offences. It is further contended that the accused has misused the concession of bail the threats were givers to the petitioner. The petitioner applied to the same Court and the direction was issued that the case may be registered against. Respondent No,
2. It is further contended that there is danger to the life of the petitioner if respondent No, 2 is not sent to jail. He has relied on (1991 SCM R 1849), (1987 PCr.LJ 1943) and (1976 Pak. Cr. L.J. 1994). It is further contended that in the inquiry all the documents have been found as forged one and respondent No, 2 has distributed the letter head pad against the petitioner.. It is further contended that the signatures on the affidavit were obtained under coercion and threats and the petitioner has not made independent statement before the Magistrate.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No, 2 has opposed this application on the ground that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with the delay of 2 years without any explanation. It is further contended that the bail has been granted on the statement of the petitioner and the civil litigation is pending between the parties even prior to the registration of the case. Respondent No, 2 is not previous convict and has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the challan has been submitted in the Court and after submission of the challan the respondent No,2 is appearing before the learned trial Court and he is ready and willing to face the trial and he has not given any threat to the petitioner. The false story has been introduced in order to get the bail cancelled. It is further contended that the bail was allowed on different grounds are not only on the ground of compromise and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. In such circumstances, the bail is not liable to be cancelled as respondent No, 2 is not involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with great care and caution. The bail was granted to respondent No, 2 on 28-9-2000 on different grounds. The compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent No,2 and petitioner also sworn affidavit in favour of respondent No, 2, hence, the bail was granted not only on the basis of affidavit but statement of the petitioner was recorded which has been thumb marked and signed by her. No doubt, it was not the compoundable offence but when the petitioner/complainant had given affidavit that she had no objection if the accused is released on bail. The bail was granted on different grounds including the delay in lodging the F.I.R. And pendency of the civil litigation, since 1997. I have noticed that the accused has filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 6-5-1997, while the suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by the petitioner on 11-11-1997 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 5-6-1999 after about two years of the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties. It is significant to note, that the F.I.R. Has been lodged withthe delay of about two years and the delay has not been explained by the petitioner. The respondent No, 2 is not involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause. The maximum sentence for which respondent No,2 can be punished is not more than 7. Years. The grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception and the bail cannot be cancelled merely on the assertion that respondent No, 2 is misusing the same unless the sufficient material/evidence regarding the misuse of concession of bail is available duly supported by the documentary evidence. No documentary evidence has been produced to show that the respondent is really misusing the concession of bail after his release from jail. No damage has been caused to the petitioner or her life by respondent No, 2 during the period of about 1.1/2 years after grant of bail. The oral assertions of the petitioner are not sufficient to hold that respondent No,2 is misusing the bail. It will be relevant to point out here that during the arguments of cancellation of bail of respondent No,2, respondent No,2 has offered that he is willing and ready to withdraw the suits and is also ready to end the litigation, but the petitioner refused to accept the offer of respondent No 2. It will not be out of place to mention here that there is and likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future and respondent No, 2 cannot be sent to jail unless the solid reason is provided by the petitioner, thus this petition has no merits and is dismissed.
6. However, the learned trial Court shall ensure the disposal of case arisen out of F.I.R. No, 272 registered on 5-6-1999 under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C. Read with section 8 of Qazaf Ordinance at Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore within three months from the receipt of this order.