' Haji Haider Khan and his son Nisar Khan, respondents, involved in case F.I.R. No.70 dated 5-9-2003 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Mulazai, District Tank, were granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Tank vide his order dated 21-11-2003. Aziz Khan, petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has filed instant application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents per the impugned order.
2. Succinctly narrated facts of the case are that on 5-9-2003 respondent Haider Khan lodged a report to the effect that on the night of occurrence he alongwith other inmates of the house was asleep in the courtyard of his house in village Abizar, Tank. At about 3 a.m. (night) rain started and they went inside the room: Women folk were busy in collecting the luggage. Wife of the complainant namely Mst. Zaitoon Bibi was taking cow to a room when she saw a person standing with the wall. She told the complainant that someone was present in the house, on which, complainant picked up his .12 bore shotgun and alongwith his son Muhammad Nisar went towards that direction. The person present in the house fired a shot with his pistol at Muhammad Nisar which got missed. In self defence, complainant also fired at that person with which he was hit.
Many person gathered at the spot, over-powered the person and snatched the pistol from him. The injured was brought to the Baithak. After a little while, he succumbed to the injuries and expired.
The person was identified to be Shamsuddin. It was also disclosed that the deceased was a thief.
Later on, both the respondents were charged in the light of statements of Tariq Javed, one of legal heirs of deceased recorded on 8-9-2003.
3. Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate for the petitioner contended that there was sufficient material available on file to link the respondents with commission of offence and that the learned Sessions Judge erred in proper dispensation of justice while allowing the respondents concession of bail merely on the ground that there are two versions respecting the occurrence, thus, the case being that of further inquiry. To support the contentions, he placed reliance on Sajid and 2 others v.
The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1455 Lahore).
4. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State adopted the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and defended the impugned order.
5. As against this Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch, Advocate for the respondents submitted that there were sufficient grounds to believe that case of the respondents necessitated further inquiry within contemplation of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Sessions Judge was quite justified to accept the application of the respondents and admit them to bail. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and another (PLD 1989 SC 585).
6. It is settled proposition of law that consideration for the grant of bail and the consideration for the cancellation of bail are absolutely different. Once an accused persons has been released on bail his liberty cannot be interfered with lightly.
7. Admittedly, there are two versions of the occurrence, one narrated by Haider Khan, respondent, in his report and the other given by Tahir Javed, brother of the petitioner and legal heir of Shamsuddin deceased. Which version is correct and which is wrong is the question which can only be determined at the trial after recording evidence. At present, case of the respondents is rightly found arguable for the purpose of bail and they have been extended the concessions of bail for valid reasons. The impugned order is based on solid footings and warrants no interference of this Court. Abdul Haq v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 1), Muhammad Sharif v. Shafqat Hussain and another (1999 SCM R 338), Liaqat Ali v. The State (2000 SCM R 1438), Imran v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1022) and Usman v. Muhammad Azam and another (2001 PCr.LJ 1461 Peshawar). The application being meritless is dismissed.
8. The observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to application-in-hand only.