LAL BAKHSH ALIAS LABU Versus STATE

Ghulam Shabbir respondent herein who is involved in a case under section 10/18 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 452, P.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No.37, dated 9-2-1993, registered at Police Station Kalur Kot, was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar vide his order, dated 21-3-1993.

2. Through the under consideration petition, Ghulam Sakina, alleged prosecutrix and the complainant, seeks the cancellation of bail of the respondent and her learned counsel contended that the respondent is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause and the same learned Judge vide order, dated 6-3-1993, dismissed the bail application of the respondent and thereafter on 21-3-1993, without there being any fresh ground allowed him bail; hence the latter order is contrary to law, fallacious, and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is the sole accused in this case, which ensures the credibility of the F.I.R. and by accepting this petition, bail granted to the respondent, as submitted above be cancelled. Placed reliance on 1993 S C M R 211.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of six days which remained unexplained and that bare reading of the F.I.R. may disclose, the commission of an offence under section 354, P.P.C., but no offence under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979, is made out. The eye-witnesses are the close relations of the complainant and the respondent has been involved in this case out of some enmity, Placed reliance on 1984 P Cr. L J 2442 and 1980 P Cr.1. J 1022.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for they respondent that from the reading of the F.I.R. prima facie, offence under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979, is not made out against the; respondent; hence the case against him is one of further inquiry. Even the F.I.R. was lodged after six days delay which remained unexplained. In the presence of this material, bail granting order cannot be termed as arbitrary, fanciful or contrary to law; hence the petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed.

N.H.Q./G-223/L Bail cancellation declined.