1983 PLP 357 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑Ghulam Hussain, the maker of the F. I. R. No. 156 dated 16‑8‑1981. Police Station Sharaqpur, Sheikhupura, under section 307 altered to 302/149, 452, 148, P. P. C. seeks leave to appeal b5 two separate petitions against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑12‑1982 (Cr. P. 187‑R/198?) and against the order of the High Court dated 9‑6‑1982 (Cr. P. 298/82) in the matter of grant of bail to the persons accused by him of committing the offence. On the 16th of August, 1981 in the limits of village Salu, P. S. Sharaqpur, District Sheikhupura, an occurrence took place in respect of which the first report was lodged by Farooq Ahmed at Police Station Sharaqpur at 7 p. m. The other report about the same occurrence was lodged by the petitioner at 11‑55 p. m. The petitioner charged the four respondents in these two petitions and one Siddique for firing at and killing Ghulam Hussain and injur ies to himself. In the other report of Farooq Ahmed the deceased alongwith his three companions was charged for effectively firing at him. On 20‑1‑1982 the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura admitted Ahsan and Asghar Ali, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Cr. P. L. A. No. 298 of 1982 to bail. On 22‑2‑1982 Ghulam Rasool, respondent No. 1 in the same petition alongwith Siddique co‑accused was admitted to bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The application of the petitioner sinking cancellation of the bail of Ahsan on the ground that he was not a minor was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 18‑5‑1982. The application for bail presented by Muhammad Saleh, respondent in Cr. Petition No. 187/1982 was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 6‑5‑1982. The petitioner moved an application seeking cancellation of bail of the three respondents in Cr. Petition No. 298/82 granted by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20‑1‑192 and 18‑5‑1982. The bail of Siddique co‑accused of the respondents was alone cancelled but as regards the other respondents, they were allowed to remain on bail. The petitioner wants to challenge the refusal of the High Court to cancel the bail of these three respondents as well. In the other petition (Cr. P. 187‑R/1982) Muhammad Saleh was admitted to bail on "‑11‑1982 by the High Court. An application was then submitted by the petitioner under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for recall of the order admitting him to bail. This came up for disposal after notice before another learned Judge and was rejected by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was a direct charge for the death of Zahid Hussain and injuries to Ghulam Hussain and the respon dents were accused of using fire‑arms except Asghar who was said to be armed with a sota. The cross‑case registered by F. I. R. No. 155 of the same date had been cancelled and the complaint filed with respect to the same occurrence by the opposite side had failed. There was, therefore, no ground for admit ting the respondents to bail. As the history of the proceedings shows three of the respondents were admitted to bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court has refused to cancel their bail.' Siddique, their co‑accused, was not allowed by the High Court to remain on bail and has been sent behind the bars. The other respondent Muhammad Saleh had been admitted to bail by the High Court and there is a refusal to recall that order granting bail on an application under section 561‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that across‑case was got registered by the accused side prior in time to the case registered by the petitioner is not disputed. The complainant of that report bad injuries which could pirma facie be said to be fire‑arm injuries, though it would be a matter of further inquiry. The Investigating Officer had in his report under section 173 given an opinion at one stage which appeared to favour Muhammad Saleh, though ha had been challaned on the same report for trial in Court. These factors were taken into consideration by the High Court for admitting him to bail. We do not consider that the process either any express provision of law has been violated or any principle of law as such. We do not consider, therefore, these two cases to be fit for grant of leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is therefore refused in both these petitions. Petitions dismissed.