MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs THE STATE and others

ORDER

'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation of post- arrest bail allowed to respondent No,2 vide order dated 14-10-2009 in Criminal Misc. No,3665/B of 2009 by this Court in case F.I.R. No,183 of 2009 dated 26-6-2009 under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i)

337-F(i), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for consideration of this petition are that complainant got registered this case on the assertion that on 26-6-2009 at about 9-45 p.m. His uncle Dilmeer Hussain went to purchase something from the next village when he reached near the house of Sharifo, suddenly Nafees son of Muhammad Arif armed with Sota Sarfraz son of Laal armed with hatchet, Shaukat Ali son of Ghulam armed with Sota, Rab Nawaz son of Laal, Sajjad Hussain son of Liaqat, Ejaz son of Liaqat Ali, Umer Daraz son of Pehlwan, Ibrar Hussain son of Shaukat, Nazakat Ali, Tehseen son of Shah Nawaz, Ahmed Sajjad son of Mukhtar armed with Sotas, Hafeez son of Muhammad Ali armed with hatchet came there. Nafees raised Lalkara on which Shaukat Ali caught hold of his uncle, meanwhile, Sarfraz gave hatchet blow which hit on the head of his uncle and he fell on the ground. On hue and cry, Shabbir, Waryam, Shahmand, Abdul Ghaffar, Zarina came on the spot and tried to save his uncle on which Rub Nawaz gave Sota blow which hit on the forehead of Shabbir while Sajjad Hussain gave Sota blow which hit on the back of head of Shabbir. Ejaz Hussain gave Sota blow which hit on the left shoulder of Shabbir. Umer Daraz gave Sota blow which hit on the nose of Waryam and his forehead. Ibrar gave Sota blow which hit on the right wrist of Waryam. Nazakat Ali, petitioner gave Sota blow which hit on the left knee of Waryam and his chest.

Tehseen gave Sota blow which hit on the head of Shahmand Ahmad Sajjad gave Sota blow, which hit on the right shoulder of Shahmand. Hafeez gave hatchet blow which hit on the head of Abdul Ghaffar, Nafees gave Sota blow which hit his real sister Zarina Bibi on her chest. Meanwhile, Abdul Hameed, Hakim Ali, Yasir came on the spot and saw the occurrence and on their request they left them. The motive behind the occurrence is that a quarrel took place between the parties on the use of water of tube well. Hence, this F.I.R.

3. After registration of the case, accused respondents No,2 filed his post-arrest bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who vide order dated 22-8-2009 dismissed the same, thereafter accused/respondent No,2 was allowed post-arrest bail by this Court through Crl.

Misc. No,3665-B-09 vide order dated 14-10-2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of accused respondents No,2 by submitting that impugned order dated 14-10-2009 is illegal, void and without lawful authority and is liable to be set aside; that respondent No,2 is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; this Court wrongly allowed post-arrest bail to the accused respondent No,2; recovery of Sota was effected from him; accused respondent No,2 also made misstatement that he is behind the bars for the last 8 months while he is behinds the bars since six months, co-accused Sarfraz also caused threats to the petitioner as well as the prosecution witnesses that if they will pursue the case against him and his other co-accused persons he will murder them, therefore, the petition for cancellation may be accepted.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel and perused the impugned order dated 14-11- 2009.

6. The role attributed to the accused respondent No,2 is that he caused injury on the body of Waryam witness not on the body of the deceased Dilmeer Hussian. The injury was on non-vital part of the Waryam injured. Two injuries on the body of Waryam one on left shank and other on the chest. Learned counsel did not utter a single word about misuse of concession of bail. Once bail is granted after exercising discretionary power, for cancellation of the A same requires special circumstances. There is not an iota of evidence that the respondent No,2 accused misused the concession of bail allowed by this Court except the affidavit of the petitioner himself in support of contention that concession of bail was misused. There is no affidavit of any independent witness, hence, in these circumstances, I would not like to interfere in the impugned order dated 14-11-2009.

There is no ground for cancellation of the bail; hence, the post-arrest bail granted by this Court is remained intact.

7. Resultantly, this petition for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed.