Through this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of the private respondents granted to them vide order dated 10-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is complainant in case F.I.R. No.321 dated 25-8-2001 under section 337-F(i)/337-F(i.e)/ 337-A(i)/148/149. P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Arifwala. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That the respondents alongwith co-- accused while armed with fire-arms and Sotas had caused injuries at the persons of Muhammad Tahir complainant and his sister Mst.
Zahida Parveen on 23-8-2001 at 7-00 p.m. Respondents and other accused filed an application for bail before arrest which has been accepted through the above said order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that private respondents are nominated accused and grant of bail before arrest without any mala fide is liable to be cancelled by this Court. It is also contended that the respondents are prima facie guilty of the offence as specific injuries have been attributed to them and are not entitled to the grant of bail which is meant to protect the innocent citizens.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondents has opposed this petition on the ground that the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, charge has been framed and case is fixed for the recording of the evidence but instead of producing the evidence, with mala fide intention, the petitioner is pressing for the cancellation of the bail.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed this petition as the challan has already been submitted in the Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted and charge has been framed against the respondent. The prosecution witnesses have also been served for several times for the recording of their statements but instead of appearing before the learned trial Court for the conclusion of the trial the petitioner is pressing this application for the cancellation of the bail. It is not appropriate at this stage to cancel the bail of the private respondents as it will prejudice the case of the accused if the application is decided on merits and is accepted. It is admitted fact that the private respondents after the confirmation of their bail before arrest have not misused the concession granted to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This application is dismisseu with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial of the above said case within 3 months from the receipt of this order.