' By this single order, I shall propose to dispose of Criminal Bail Cancellation Petitions Nos.69, 70 and 102 of 2004 as all the three petitions are the outcome of one and the same F.I.R. No.163, dated 27-9- 2002 registered at Police Station, Domail at the instance of complainant Haji Bashar Gul, for offences under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the night of occurrence i.e. 27-9-2002 complainant Haji Bashar Gul was present in his house in village Walgai when at about 1945 hours he heard noise outside his house. The complainant along with his sister-in-law Mst. Malang Bibi, widow of Aqal Khan left the house and noticed his co-villagers Manzoor, Najibullah and Nazimullah sons of Nazar Jan armed with Kalashnikovs quarrelling with Shafqatullah (deceased) and Abdul Qasim, sons of the complainant. When the complainant and Mst. Malang Bibi reached near the accused persons to effect separation, they resorted to indiscriminate firing which culminated in the murder of Shafqatullah and injuries to Mst. Malang Bibi. However, complainant and his son Abdul Qasim escaped unhurt. Explaining the motive, it was stated that a dead donkey was thrown in front of the house of the accused and the complainant was suspected of having done so.
3. Respondents Nazimullah and Najeebullah were granted bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu vide orders dated 17-2-2004 and 3-1-2003 respectively whereas respondent Manzoor Hussain was relea'sed on bail by Judicial Magistrate, Bannu vide order dated 4-3-2004.
Haji Bashar Gul, complainant has filed above petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused-respondents per the impugned orders.
4. Mr. Faridullah Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioner forcefully contended that every counter- version does not make a case of further inquiry and that there should be a genuine cross case justifying grant of bail. He maintained that discretion in this case has not been properly exercised which has resulted in manifest justice. To substantiate the pleas, he placed reliance on Javed Iqbal v. Abdul Malik and others 1999 YLR 1710, Fazal Nabi and another v. Sahibzada and another 2002 PCr.LJ 1483 Peshawar, Feroz Shah v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1470 Peshawar and Zarghun Shah v. The State and another 2004 PCr.LJ 127 Peshawar.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate-General Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, opposed the bail granting orders and urged that sufficient material was available on the file to connect the respondents with the commission of crime and there was no justifiable reason for release of the respondents on bail.
6. As against that, Syed Fakharuddin Shah, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned orders and contended that having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and the cross case registered vide F.I.R. No.162 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At the behest of Mst. Shamima, bail was granted to the respondents for valid reasons which cannot be questioned.
7. The consideration for the grant of bail and cancellation thereof are different. Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Lays prohibition for the grant of bail for offences entailing punishment of death or imprisonment for life or for ten years whereas subsection (5) of the said section has not imposed any such conditionality for cancelling the bail and any bail granting order which appears to be injudicious or perverse to the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, can be recalled by it as held in Mirbaz Khan v. The State PLD 1991 Peshawar 63.
8. Having heard the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that bail was granted to respondents mainly for the reason that there is a cross-version of the occurrence registered vide -F.I.R. No.162 of the same date and police station. The timings of occurrence and venue of occurrence of both the cases are one and the same. Apparently both the cases appear to be cross cases. When there are counter-versions, it becomes difficult to determine at bail stage as to which of the party initiated the aggression. So, in such a situation case becomes one of further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Again, once a Court of competent jurisdiction passes bail order, very strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the same. The bail can be recalled where the person on bail repeats the offence, hampers the investigation, makes some efforts to tamper with the evidence, commits some acts of violence against the police and prosecution witnesses or manages to flee away from the country. No such ground could be agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned orders being unexceptionable, call for no interference by this Court. The petitions fail which are 113 hereby dismissed.