AAMER SOHAIL vs THE STATE and 3 others

ORDER

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Zafar Iqbal, Faiz Rasool and Iftikhar Ahmed (respondents Nos. 2 to 4)/accused in case F.I.R. No.159 of 2008, dated 14-4-2008 under sections 452/379/337-F(iii)/148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Ahmed City Sadiq Abad, District Rahimyar Khan have been allowed pre-arrest bail vide order dated 10-3-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiq Abad.

2. Aamer Sohail complainant/petitioner being aggrieved of the confirmation of pre-arrest bail to the above named respondents have sought cancellation thereof in terms of section 497(5) read with sections 435/439, Cr.P.C.

3. This application for cancellation of bail is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

4. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties, DPG for the State and also gone through the record.

5. Referring the pendency of civil litigation between the parties it is alleged in the F.I.R. That on 14-4- 2008 at 6-30 a.m. Above named accused along with their co-accused entered in the disputed Ahata and caused injuries to Ghulam Hussain and Hayat Machi with sotas. Accused Zafar Iqbal is attributed soti blow to Ghulam Hussain, which is declared injury No.1 as Shajjah-i-khatifah in the Medico Legal Report No. 162 of 2008 of Ghulam Hussain injured. The accused Faiz Rasool is attributed soti blow to Bero son of Fouj Ali, which is declared injury No.3 as Shajjah-i-khafifah in Medico Legal Report No.160 of 2008. Therefore, both these injuries are simple in nature attracting the offence under section 337-A(i), P.P.C., which is bailable.

6. It is noteworthy that immediately before the F.I.R. No.159 of 2008 lodged by Aamir Sohail, police had already lodged another F.I.R. No.158 of 2008 regarding the same occurrence at 6-30 p.m. On the statement of Mst. Khatija Bibi wife of Faiz Rasool against Aamir Sohail and others, therefore, keeping in view the parties prior indulgence in the litigation it is yet to be established that who is the actual aggressor. In such like cases false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, considering the attributions to the respondents/accused learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed the pre-arrest bail of respondents Nos.2 to 4. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the bail granting order dated 10-3-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiqabad.

7. As regards the plea for cancellation of bail suffice it to say that considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different from those for grant of bail. It is well-settled that plea for cancellation of bail can be raised on the following grounds:-

(i) that the order granting bail is illegal, perverse, passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail, factually incorrect or has resulted into miscarriage of justice;

(ii) that the accused persons have misused the benefit of bail;

(iii) that there is possibility of repetition of the offence charge with or commission with any other offence;

(iv) that there is apprehension of abscondance of the accused;

(v) that accused are trying to tamper with the prosecution evidence; and

8. In the instant case petitioner/complainant has miserably failed to substantiate any one of the aforementioned ground for cancellation of bail, therefore, finding the bail granting order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with law, I do not see any merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.