1. ' This is an application filed by the complainant for cancellation of the bail, granted to the respondents Nos.1 to 5 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Dadu, by order dated 27-11-1198.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 23-7-1998 at about 2-30 hours night time the complainant Amir Bakhsh lodged report at Police Post Kakar, which was incorporated to Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station stating therein that he got six sons and two daughters out of whom Ghous Bux is aged about 28 years and he resided with his son Ghuops Bux, Riaz alongwith his cousin together. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. By the complainant, that about five months back' Liaquat Hinghoro son of Dittal Hinghoro was killed by Sikandar Hinghoro's party, in which the complainant's son Ghous Bux was a witness against them, who was warned not to give evidence against them, else he will be killed. It was further alleged that on 23-7-1998 at about 2-30 hours night, when all the house inmates were asleep, at the knocking of door they awakened and noticed, on light of bulb, accused Sikandar son of Ahmed, Hashim son of Allanditoo, Nazroo son of Budho, Ali Muhammad alias Karo son of Mitho, and Allanditto son of Sodho all Hinghora by Caste residents of Village WarWara-Hinghoro, out of them accused Sikandar and Hashim were armed with guns and rest were having hatchets in their hands. It is further case of complainant that accused Allanditto instigated other accused not to spare Ghous Bux and kill him and on such instigation accused Ghous Bux was fired at by accused Sikandar directly with intention to kill him which hit Ghous Bux and accused Hashim also fired from his gun at Ghous Bux and then the accused persons ran away. Thereafter, complainant party found Ghous Bux dead, having gun-shot injuries and such.
3. Report was lodged with Police Post Kakar. During investigation, accused were arrested by police and the case was challaned.
4. ' The application for bail was moved before the trial Court by the accused and the trial Court, by order dated 27th November, 1998, granted the bail. The bail was granted and the reasons for such grant of bail were given in the order. The complainant has come to this Court for cancellation of the bail as according to him bail was granted by the trial Court, without touching the merits of the case. He has also alleged that the name of the accused persons appear in the F.I.R. And active role of firing over deceased is attributed to accused Sikandar Ali and Muhammad Hashim which resulted in death of deceased Ghous Bux. He has also urged that after release on bail the accused have misused their liberty and grace of bail and have threatened the complainant party of dire consequences, if the case is not withdrawn otherwise they shall be murdered like Ghous Bux. The complainant has also insisted that the other accused are also vicariously liable as they could be held guilty, on account of common intention. He has also levelled charges against the police as according to him bribes have been given to police whereafter the recommendation for release on bail has been made by the S.D.P.O.
5. ' The learned counsel for the complainant thereafter, in support of his version that the bail should be cancelled, has relied on the case of Ghulam Nabi v. The State reported in (1994 MLD at page 867), Liaquat v. The State reported in PLD 1994 Supreme Court page 172, Vikio v. Abdullah reported 1980 PCr.LJ page 602, Ali Raza v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ page 1187, Tahir v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ page 1198, Muhammad Tufail v. Nasir Mehmood reported in 1994 PCr.LJ page 1451, The State v. Malik Mukhtiar Ahmed Awan reported in 1991 SCMR page 322, Anjum Farooq Paraha v. Waqar Zafar Chohan reported in 1994 SCMR at page 451, Rafiullah v. The State reported in 1998 SCMR page 356.
6. ' In all these cases bail was refused and or cancelled after taking into consideration the factual aspect of each case. In each case while refusing the bail and or cancelling the bail, it has been observed that if a specific role has been assigned to the accused in the F.I.R. And it is supported by the testimony of witnesses then bail was refused. General principles for cancellation of bail have also been discussed which would have to look into reasons why the bail was granted originally and if the Court come to the conclusion that order granting bail was perverse and was in total disregard of legal principles and the discretion was not exercised judiciously, then bail could be cancelled.
7. ' The learned counsel for the accused was also present and who has denied that the bail was granted to his client after due consideration of the facts and in fact the police also had issued the letter of recommendation as according to them after investigation they had come to the conclusion that it was a fit case for grant of bail. He has relied on the case of Sher and others v. The State reported in 1979 SCMR page 60, Akram Khan v. The State reported in 1978 SCMR page 242, Muhammad Afzal v. Nazir Ahmed reported in 1984 SCMR page 429, Amir Ali v. The State 1984 SCMR page521, Muhammad Abbas v. The State reported in 1987 SCMR page 483, Dr. Muhammad Aslam v.
8. The State reported in 1993 SCMR page 2288, Ali Sardar v. Gul Moeen reported in 1981 SCMR page 860.
9. ' I have gone through all the case-laws submitted by the counsel for the accused which are mostly of the Honourable Supreme Court and where bail was granted. The case of Muhammad Afzal v.
10. Nazir Ahmed, Amir Ali v. The State and Muhammad Abbas v. The State are particularly relevant as in all these cases the bail was granted after submission of report by Investigating Officers or by senior police officers who recommended the grant of bail. The bail was granted by the Honourable Supreme Court or the matter was referred back to the High Court with the direction that the opinions so expressed by competent people should be taken into consideration whilst granting of bail. Of course, the factual aspect and his appreciation also has been taken into account while coming to conclusion that the matter was of a further enquiry and the grant of bail was in good grace.
11. ' I have gone through all the case-law that are particularly relevant. I have also seen recommendation of the SDPO who has given opinion that the accused may be released on bail under section 497, Cr.P.C.
12. ' There is a mis-interpretation of the contents of this order by the A.A.-G. Who has insisted that the bail was recommended after investigation and on merits but in my view a bail is always recommended on preliminary investigation, since further inquiry is required to be made and going on the doctrine that the person is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The letter has gone on to recommend a total investigation on merits. If the interpretation given is to be accepted then the inference would be that the investigation on merits has to be completed first whereafter bail be granted. To my mind if after completion of the investigation and on merits and finalization of the case it would not be a fit case for bail but then it would be case of acquittal. I am positive that this was not the intention of the letter issued by the SDPO. Even otherwise no specific allegation has been made that the accused after release on bail are misusing and or abusing the grace given to them. Even though a generalized ground has been taken in the application lukewarm attempt has been made by the learned counsel while addressing this Court.
13. ' In these circumstances, the application is dismissed however, the accused are warned that if any attempt is made by them to intimidate or harrass the complainant and or his family or relations or in case if they take any coercive action to influence as witnesses, below the trial Court and if notice of such action is brought before the competent Court then the liberty being enjoyed would be forthwith cancelled.