MUHAMMAD JAN vs SANOBAR and 2 others

' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Jan, complainant-petitioner has filed this petition for cancellation of bail granted to Sanober and Wali Khan, accused-respondents, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on 25-9-2007, in case F.I.R. No,450, dated 9-7-2007, registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. In Police Station, Pharipura.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Jan, complainant, in an injured condition, lodged a report to Khan Abbas S.-I., Casualty Ward, LRH, Peshawar, on 9-7-2007 at 22-00 hours, to the effect that Sanober had an outstanding amount of Rs,2,50,000 against the complainant-petitioner, in a Datsun bargain for the last two years. On the eventful day, the complainant was present at the place of occurrence, when Sanober and Wali Khan came there. Sanober demanded the outstanding money from the complainant. He told him that the matter would be patched up the following day in a Jirga. Feeling angry with this, Sanober ordered Wali Khan to kill him, on which Wali Khan fired at the complainant with pistol, with which he was hit and injured on his right thigh.

He was brought to the hospital by the people present there.

3. The accused-respondents moved the Court of Judicial Magistrate for bail, which was rejected on 17-9-2007. Thereafter, they applied to the Court of Session and vide order dated 25-9-2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Peshawar granted them the concession of bail. Now Muhammad Jan petitioner has come to this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the accused- respondents. The parties have submitted their written arguments, which were perused.

4. It was submitted by the petitioner that there was direct charge against the respondents backed by a strong motive. Although it was a night occurrence but there is no chance of misidentification, as the accused were already known to the complainant and thus, it was prayed that the bail granted to the accused-respondents be cancelled.

5. Accused-respondents in their written arguments contended that there is a false charge against them and the investigation in this case is complete and thus, they are no longer required for investigation. Furthermore, there is no chance of absconsion of the accused-respondents and the concession of bail extended to them has not been misused by them.

6. I have gone through the record of the case and written arguments submitted by the both the parties. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, so that it may not prejudice the case of either party. Suffice it to note that once the concession of bail is extended to the accused charged in a criminal case, he enjoys presumption of his innocence in his favour and to recall that order, exceptional ground has to be shown. Once the Court, while granting bail to the accused, exercises its discretion properly and in accordance with the established norms of justice, then strong grounds lad to be shown for cancellation of the same, which are missing in the present case, as held in the case of A Muzaffar Iqbal. v. Imran Aziz and others 2004 SCM R 231.

7. The discretion has been exercised by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-X, Peshawar in a proper way, which is strictly in accordance with the established principles for the grant of bail, which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

' In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in the present bail cancellation application, which is hereby dismissed.