1976 P Cr (PLP)

Sh. Nisar Qutab for Respondents Nos. 1 to

5. Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for the State. This is an application by Hail Khuda Yar son of Noor Muhammad, under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. for the cancellation of bail granted to Warris Muhammad, Sikandar. Mukhtar, Riaz and Noor Muhammad, respondents, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. They are accused of offence under section 302/307, P. P. C.

2. The history of the case is chequered one because the police at the initial stages of the investigation, did not lend much support to the case of tire complainant and it was ultimately that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before a Magistrate on 13‑10‑1972. The respondents have now teen committed to the Court of Session vide commitment order dated 23‑4‑1975 (Annex. `D') after the learned Magistrate carne to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to connect all the accused, prima facie, with the offences. The respondents were granted bail by the earned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vile his order dated 29‑8‑1972. on the sole ground that the police at that time had no positive data of evidence against the present respondents.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record of the case made available with this petition in the form of commitment order, attested copy of the F. I. R. a copy of the complaint and a copy of the complaint under section 506, Cr. P. C. against Waris Muhammad, Sikandar and Raiz respondent, alongwith a certified copy of the inquiry report submitted by Ch. Habib Hussain E. A. C. to the trial Court.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the respondents having been once committed to the Court of Session, are not entitled to remain on bail because a prima facie case under section 302, P. P. C. has been made out against them. In support of his contention he has relied on Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Hanif (1970 S C M R 143). He has also urged that bail granted to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was on the sole ground that the police had no material a that time with them against the present respondents but now of the entire evidence has been brought against them on the record before the Inquiry Magistrate, therefore, that order will not be of any avail to the respondents at this stage. He has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, declined to cancel the bail granted to the respondent because a Court of equal jurisdictions granted the same. Therefore it has been urged that he moved this petition before this superior Court to exercise its discretion in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. He has laid emphasis on the point that the judicial inquiry bas established on the record that the present respondents are tempering with the evidence and threatening the complainant the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, with dire consequences.

5. On the other hands the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the latest authority of the Supreme Court mere commitment of the respondents is no manner stands in their way to be released on bail if the appellate authority while considering the entire case comes to a conclusion that reasonable grounds did not exist connecting them with the offence so charged. He has submitted that this judicial inquiry is nothing but a counterblast in order to show and create unfavourable circumstances against the respondents in order to move, the Court to cancel their bail. According to the learned counsel if the respondents were such desperate persons then they would have moved much‑earlier in this respect and would not have kept quiet for the last three years.

6. I have given my anxious thought to all these contentions by both the parties and I am of the view that Waris Muhammad respondent who has been attributed fatal shot in this case, does not deserve to remain on bail after once he has been committed to the Court of Session. Without entering into the merits of the case I cancel his bail. So granted to him in the year 1972, when at that time the police was not in possession of any evidence against him. As far as the other respondents are concerned. I am not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are tampering with the evidence or in any manner are after the life of the complainant, because suchlike menoeuvre are easily understandable when the case is going to be tried by the Court of Session. Accordingly, the application qua Sikendar, Mukhtar, Riaz and Noor Muhammad, is dismissed. Order accordingly.