1975 PLP 247 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 8th of November 1974 refusing bail to the petitioners in a case pending against them under sections 301 and 459/460 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The F. I. R. was recorded within an hour of the occurrence at 4 a.m. on the 5th May 1974 at Police Station Gulberg, Lyallpur, at the instance of the father of deceased Riaz Ahmad. The, first informant cited three other eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Mst. Nasim Begum (widow of the deceased), Tufail Muhammad (brother of the deceased? and a neighbour by the name of Shabbir. The investigation of the case was successively conducted by 5 or 6 Police Officers, and ultimately a final report has now been submitted to the Court concerned against the two petitioners and their co‑accused Muhammad Aleem, who was apprehended at the spot after the occurrence. The learned Judge in the High Court has given a detailed account of the successive investigations, but it is not necessary for us to dilate upon them. It is submitted by Mr. Mahmood Ali Kasuri that at least three police Officers have found the petitioners not guilty and have accepted their alibi; that the blunt weapon injuries fund on the person of the deceased are not at all explained in the first information report; that the only independent witness, namely, Shabbir has sworn an affidavit exonerating the two petitioners; and that the petitioners are College Students and would suffer irreparable loss in their academic career by being kept in prolonged custody during the pendency of the trial. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at quite some length, and examining the available material with the help of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, we are of the view that in the presence of the evidence of the eye‑witnesses named in the F. I. R. it is not possible at this stage to hold that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. The questions of alibi and of any contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence ought more appropriately be examined, in the first instance, by the Courts concerned with the committal and trial of the petitioners and their co‑accused. Whatever the difference of opinion between the various investigating officers as to the liability of the petitioners, the fact remains that the last investigating officer has submitted a final report against them and that report has been endorsed by the superior Police Officers as well. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in refusing bail. For the foregoing reasons this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Mr. Mahmood Ali Kasuri expressed an apprehension that some observations made by the High Court may prejudice the case of his clients. There does not, however, appear to be any basis for this apprehension, as, in the concluding portion of his judgment, the learned Judge has himself made it clear that be was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. In any event, it is clear that the observations made by the superior Courts, while dealing with question of bail, are intended only for that limited purpose. In view of the fact that the petitioners are stated to be college‑going students, let the commitment proceedings and the subsequent trial, if any, be expedited. P. S.‑It is needless to add that the petitioners may renew their bail application before the appropriate Court when some evidence has been recorded. Leave refused.