2001 SCMR 1544 (PLP)

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Riasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 2000. CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J. ‑

‑‑Respondents Nos.l and 2 were allowed pre‑arrest bail by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3791‑B of 2000 in a c1se under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. with, among others, the following observations:‑‑ "I see eye to eye with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if Suhrab Khan and Allah Ditta witnesses of the abetment heard the petitioners instigating their co‑accused to liquidate Asghar Ali and they would provide them with firms and ammunition and shall also be responsible for the expenditure of litigation, why did they not immediately inform this development to the complainant so that remedial measures could have been taken to the contrary they gave no significance to such an important event and took a bus for Jhang to make purchase which could have been put off to another day. This conduct exhibited by the two witnesses is contrary to human behaviour. Statements of these witness were read over by the learned counsel for the State but I did not want to comment or make any observation lest it may prejudice the case of any one of the parties during the trial. Suffice it to say that M. Nawaz and Sadiq Khan petitioners not being related to Asghar Ali or the complainant they would not have any grudge for the abduction of Mst. Naseem Mai, as admittedly both the parties are Baluch by caste and only immediate relations feel provoked by the abduction of their women‑folk. In other words charge against the petitioners have been brought with a mala fide intention to implicate them, prima facie. I am not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioners acknowledged their guilt in presence of 40/50 persons during investigation because acknowledgement (if any) was made to a person in authority, as such admission is excluded by the provisions of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984 being inadmissible. Submission of challan in the Court also does not support the prosecution in any manner so as' to restrain the Court from exercising its discretion which always is to be exercised on the touch stone of the allegations made."

2. The petitioner, first informant, has made this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for leave against the impugned judgment dated 25‑7‑2000, mainly on the ground that some of the observations made therein by the learned Judge in Chambers are tantamount to deciding the case in favour of the defence right away.

3. However, when the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment to the effect that: "This order would not in any manner abridge powers of the trial Judge in seeking cancellation of the bail in case there is sufficient evidence which comes on the file through the mouth of the witnesses regarding the commission of the offence, by the petitioners (respondents Nos.l and 2 herein)" (underlining is for emphasis), he was not in a position to support this petition and submitted that the observations in the impugned judgment may be further diluted by this Court.

4. We are afraid, in the presence of the observations quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, we do not find any ground for interference with in the well‑reasoned discretionary order of the High Court granting pre arrest bail to the private respondents herein.

5. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑63/S Leave refused.