MUZAFFAR IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD IMRAN AZIZ and others

ORDER

' Cancellation of bail granted in favour of accused/respondents vide order impugned is sought on the ground that F.I.R. Was got lodged with promptitude, specific role has been assigned to the respondents and moreso, that factum of vicarious liability has prima facie been established. It is also pointed out that during the last investigation respondents were found guilty.

2. After having careful examination of the record of the case we are of the view that the learned Single Judge in Chambers has exercised its discretion properly and in accordance with settled norms of justice. It is worth-mentioning that exceptional circumstances warranting interference are lacking and, therefore, it is not a fit ease where the provisions as contained in Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan could be invoked. It is alleged in F.I.R. And stressed time and again by learned Advocate Supreme Court that indiscriminate firing was made but amazingly no one could be hurt which aspect of the matter certainly needs a thorough probe and, therefore, concession of bail has rightly been extended by the learned High Court by invoking the concept of further inquiry. In this regards we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in Falak Sher v.

The State 1979 SCM R 103, Najeeb Gul v. Khalid Khan 1989 SCM R 899.

3. It is well-settled by now that "considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Prohibits the grant of bail for offences punishable with death or imprisonment of 10 years or over. Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Does not command the Court to cancel the bail even when the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and even if the grant of bail is prohibited under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The discretion is left in the Court under section 497(5). Cr.P.C. Which is pari meteria with the principles which apply to the setting aside of the orders of acquittal." (Mian Dad v. The State 1992 SCMR 1289).

In view of what has been mentioned hereinabove it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail as strong and exceptional grounds are needed to get it cancelled which are not available. The learned trial Court is however, directed to get the matter disposed of expeditiously and if at any later stage some more incriminating material comes on record against the accused/respondents, the petitioner would be at liberty to move application for cancellation ofbail which would be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

4. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not affect the merits of the case.

In the light of foregoing discussion the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.