1969 PLP 2 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Daud Ilyas, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sirjees Nagi, Attorney for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing : 9th October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner was, along with several others, made an accused in a case under sections 148, 302/ 149 and 307/ 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the alleged murder of two persons, by the local police. On re‑investigation of the case, however, by the Crimes Branch, Lahore, the petitioner was only placed in column No.

2. Thereupon the petitioner applied for bail under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code and bail was granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sahiwal on the ground that there are two conflicting versions with regard to the petitioner by the police itself, one by the local police which is adverse to him and the other by the Crimes Branch which is in his favour. This bail has since been cancelled by the High Court on the application of one Riasat Ali who claims to be an eye witness in the case. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from this order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan. During the course of the hearing of this petition, however, it has transpired that when filing this petition for special leave to appeal, the petitioner also applied for ad interim bail but this application was rejected with the observation that it would not debar the Magistrate from "holding the enquiry to consider the petitioner's prayer for bail, if any, on merits under section 497(2), Cr. P. C. if he decides to summon him". Thereafter the petitioner moved the Magistrate for bail but bail was refused to him on the 9th August 1968. Against this order the petitioner went in revision to the High Court but that revision has also since been dismissed. He has not yet applied for special leave to appeal from that order. In the mean time the Magistrate has summoned the petitioner on the 3rd of September 1968. The position that emerges, therefore, is that the present petition has become infructuous by reason of the fact that subsequent proceedings for bail have again been commenced by the petitioner. Now that the petitioner has been summoned by the Magistrate he may either apply under section 497(2), Cr. P. C. to the Magistrate for bail or, if there is still time, he may apply for leave to appeal from the order of the High Court, refusing to interfere in revision with the order dated the 9th August 1968, refusing bail to the petitioner. This petition is, however, dismissed as having become infructuous. Petition dismissed.