1976 PLP 352 (SCMR)

Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in all the Petitions). Jamil Hussain Rizvi. Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2 (in all the Petitions). Date of hearing : 3rd February 1976. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑Petitions Nos. 66‑R to 73‑R of 1975 have been heard together and they are now being disposed of under one order. A case under section 436/452/379/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the petitioners on the 8th of April, 1975. It appears that the offences alleged against the petitioners were the result of an outburst of violence on account of the fact that earlier on the same day two school girls were said to have been forcibly abducted by Ghulam Shabbir alias Punnu and Iftikhar alias Achhi and another. The police and the Resident Magistrate had been approached but no effective action had been taken to secure the release of the girls or apprehend the culprits with the result that the emotions ran high and a crowd trespassed into the properties possessed by the relatives of the aforesaid Ghulam Shabbir and Iftikhar. Some of the petitioners appear to be respectable persons. The first information report was lodged containing more‑or less general allegations against a large number of people including the petitioners. It is said that during the investigation nothing incriminating were recovered from any of the petitioners. The petitioners had been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge in lay 1975. On an application filed by a private complainant the bail of the petitioners was cancelled by a learned Single Judge of the High. Court. It may be mentioned here that earlier the same learned Judge had granted them interim bail before arrest. On the 26th of August, 1975, the Honourable the Chief Justice of Pakistan granted interim bail to the petitioners until the disposal of the leave petitions. We are told that the challan is ready for submission and will he submitted soon. It could not be submitted earlier on account of the illness of the police officer concerned. On our inquiry we are to by Mr. Riaz Ahmad. Assistant Advocate‑General, that there is no allegation of misuse of bail against any one of the petitioners. In view of the recent taw abolishing the inquiry proceeding under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is not likely that the trial of the case will be delayed. In these circumstances we grant leave to appeal and convert the petitions into appeals and dispose them of in the following manner. The appellants will continue to, remain on bail as earlier granted by the Honourable the Chief Justice. We should, however, like to observe that if at any time any one of the appellants misuse the privilege of bat in any manner, State will be at liberty to apply to the competent authority for cancellation of bail. We should further like to observe that the trial of the case against the appellants be expedited. Order accordingly