ORDER SHEET
_____________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
_____________________________________________________
For hearing.
Certified copy of annexures not filed.
28.8.2007.
Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan for applicant.
Mr. Muhammad Nauman Jamali for
respondent No. 2.
Mr. M. Sabir Hyder AAG for State.
________
The applicant has assailed the impugned order for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 2 in Crime No. 294/2006 under Section 489-F PPC registered at P.S. Saddar.
Precisely the facts leading to the case are that report was lodged on 14th December 2006 by complainant Shahraz Khan Awan that he had lend Rs. 600,000/- to the applicant for the purchase of motor car. He attempted to abide the terms, on the contrary issued a cheque for Rs. 400,000/- and had also paid Rs. 200,000/- cash to him. The cheque on presentation to bank was dishonoured.
Mr. Muhammad Akbar Awan learned counsel for applicant has contended that on account of acts and omissions of the respondent No. 2 the applicant has been deprived of his lifelong earning, mere admission on the part of the applicant of issuance of the cheque tantamount to the fact that he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
Conversely Mr. Muhammad Nauman Jamali learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that the impugned order does not suffer from legal informity as the amount claimed by the applicant has been paid to him and on the date of occurrence respondent No. 2 was not available in Pakistan therefore no case is made out for cancellation of bail.
Mr. M. Sabir Hyder learned A.A.G. has supported the order of the trial court as the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause contained under Section 497 Cr.P.C nor any circumstance has been set forth by the applicant warranting cancellation of the bail.
I have considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the impugned order. Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. cannot sparingly be used unless there are strong circumstances warranting cancellation of the bail. Not a single ground had been agitated by the applicant for the cancellation of bail. There is no allegation of misuse of concession of bail nor there are allegations to the effect that the applicant has been tempering with the witnesses, the prosecution case rest on the documentary evidence which cannot be tempered by the respondent No. 2. Mere allegation of issuance of threats by the respondent No. 2 not supported by the concrete evidence does not warrant cancellation of bail. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances no case is made out by the applicant for interference in the impugned order. Consequently application merits no consideration and is hereby dismissed. However it is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that charge has been framed and the matter has been set on trial. Learned trial judge is directed to expedite the matter and disposed off the same within six months. With the above observations Cr. Misc. No. 83/2007 stands disposed off.
J U D G E