' Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that bail was wrongly granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because the offences alleged against the petitioner do fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And moreover, he was not minor at the time of occurrence. In this regard he has placed on record the birth certificate issued by Secretary Union Council Raja Jang which reveals his date of birth as 18-11-1983.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is lot of difference between the grant of bail and cancellation of bail. Unless the order passed by the learned lower Court is illegal, perverse or arbitrary bail cannot be cancelled. Moreover, the respondent after being released on bail never misused the concession of bail. He further submits that all the grounds which are agitated in the instant petitions, were available to the petitioner before the learned trial Court. He has relied upon 1999 PCr.LJ 1074 and NLR (Crl.) Vol. XVIII. In nutshell he submits that this is not a case for cancellation of bail.
3. Learned State Counsel on the other hand submits that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the respondents have repeated the offence. I have gone through the contents of the petition wherein it has been mentioned that the respondents had also given beating to the injured P.W. And in this regard a case F.I.R. No,202 of 2003 was registered in Police Station Raja Jang.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case respondent was armed with hatchet. First he gave an injury on the head of the injured P.W. And thereafter he repeated the same while hitting his nasal bone. The date of birth of the respondent 18-11-1983 according to the birth certificate which has been placed on the record as Annexure "G". Occurrence has taken place on 3-11-2003. Respondent was 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. Offence alleged against the respondent falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. I am unable to understand that the learned Additional Sessions Judg even did not know that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Wherein sentence is 10 years, imprisonment for life and death sentence also. Moreover, respondent has repeated the offence. He has earlier given beating to the same P.W. And in this regard F.I.R. No,202 of 2002 was also registered in the Police Station Raja Jang.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the evidence available on the record and the impugned judgment also, I am of the opinion that it was not a case of bail, so to the respondent is hereby cancelled. He shall be taken into custody.
Bail cancelled.