2010 P Cr.

L J 783

[Peshawar]

Before Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J

WAHABUDDIN---Petitioner

Versus

FAYYAZ KHAN and 2 others---Respondents

B.C.A. No.1422 of 2009, decided on Ist October, 2009.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324,447/148/149---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd

and criminal trespass---Cancellation of bail, petition for---Grounds for grant of bail and that of
cancellation of bail granted by a competent court were totally different---Strong and cogent
reasons were required for the recall of bail granting order for instance, if the bail granting order
was perverse or in disregard of settled principles regulating the grant of bail or, which was based
on no material/evidence or accused after grant of bail had misused the concession so extended to
accused---Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant was unable to put forth any of the said
principles governing the cancellation of bail---No such other circumstance was pointed out
which could have helped him in support of the petition for cancellation of bail---Trial Court, in
circumstances, had rightly confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail of accused within ambit of
law.

Sher Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.

Barrister Masood Kausar for Respondent.

Fazalur Rahman Khan, A.-A.G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st October, 2009.

JUDGMENT

MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Through the present petition, the complainant of
the case F.I.R. No. 600, dated 15-7-2009 Wahab-ud-Din has approached this Court for
cancellation of bail before arrest granted to Fayaz Khan and Yasin Khattak, complainant and the
eye-witness of case F.I.R. No.590, dated 12-7-2009.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15-7-2009 at 13-00 hours, Wahabuddin
complainant reported the matter to the police in writing that at the fateful time, he along with his
other fellows was on duty at Khushal Garden when in the meantime, Fayyaz, Asad Ayaz, Yasin
Khattak and Kamal Bacha along with 4/5 other unknown persons armed with Kalashnikovs and
pistols came there and opened indiscriminate firing at them. They took shelter and resorted to
aerial firing in self-defence. Motive for the offence was stated to be a dispute over the
land/scheme of the garden.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the grounds for grant of bail
and that of cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court are totally different. Strong and
cogent reasons are required for the recall of the same, for instance, if the bail granting order is
perverse or in disregard of settled principles regulating the grant of bail or which was based on
no material/evidence or the accused after grant of bail has misused the concession to extended to
the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to put forth any of the
above settled principles governing the cancellation of bail. Similarly no such other circumstance
was pointed out which could have helped him in support of his petition.

4. While keeping in view the circumstances and facts of the present case, it appears that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV has rightly confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail of the
accused respondents within the ambit of law. Thus, this petition for cancellation of bail being
without any merits is accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./89/P Petition dismissed.