P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

Saleem Muhammad Malik for the State: Date of hearing : 22nd March 1966. A case under sections 302/148/149, P. P. C. against the eight respondents is pending enquiry in the Court of a Magistrate at Kamalia. Two more persons .who are absconding were charged along with the eight respondents in the F. I. R. The eight persons were allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge inter alia on the ground that no specific part had been ascribed to respondents 1 to 5, and that there was no gun shot injury on the deceased whereas some of the accused persons were allegedly having fire arms.

2. The petitioner has come in revision against the order of release, of the respondents on bail mainly on the grounds, firstly, that the respondent party is influential one and that it is not likely for the case to take its normal course for the reason that the prosecution witnesses are being threatened by the respondents, of whom Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan (since dead) was the ring leader. On this aspect of the matter this Court has nothing before it beyond the mere assertion made by the petitioner in the grounds of the petition. On this aspect of the matter, the proper course for the petitioner would have been to have moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, apprising him of the misuse, if any, of the privilege afforded by him to the respondents. The remedy being available at the first instance more conveniently, the petition on this ground alone in this Court in its revisional jurisdiction is misconceived. However, this being not the only ground, which I shall presently take up, the petitioner came direct to this forum.

3. The order of release recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been assailed on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions did not appreciate the relevant provision of law governing the bail and has thus resulted in the miscarriage of justice. For clear understanding, it is pertinent to set‑forth brief facts of the case. In the report it is alleged that respon dents 1, 2, 4 and 5 were armed with barchhis, respondent No. 3 was having a knife and the rest of them were armed with fire, arms. The medical report is that the deceased had in all ten injuries out of which two were stab wounds and the remaining eight injuries were contusions and abrasions in nature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while recording the release order was of the view that no specific part was ascribed to the respondents and that there was no, fire arm wound on the deceased. It was observed in the order of release that the Inquiry Magistrate if gets convinced during the inquiry proceedings about the guilt of the respondents, will be competent to cancel the bail. With this background of the matter the cancellation of bail is sought in this Court.

4. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail can be revised only if the High Court is satisfied that the discretion has not been exercised with proper care; or the case is otherwise an exceptional one. The section governing bail speaks only of reasonable grounds and not of evidence. In the exercise of this discretion the Court is not called upon to conduct a preliminary trial of the case and consider the probability of the accused's guilt or innocence. The Court had only to look at the weight of the evidence against the accused persons to see whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that they had been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. The section further provides in subsection (2): S. 497 (2).‑"If it appears to such officer of Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds, for believing that the accused has committed a non‑bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided." The intention of the section appears to be that the Court has to enquire whether or not the release of the accused person will lead to a real danger of his absconding and not appearing to stand his trial and whether or not there is any real reason to suppose that the accused person is likely to tamper with the witnesses who would be called against him. The Court, in its discretion while granting bail to an accused person, is required in law to make sure that there are not "real" danger of abscondence and tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the accused person. In the event of any such apprehension, the matter should be brought to the notice of the Court that has allowed the bail, and the question whether or not the apprehension is real one or imaginary can be adequately gone into by that Court.

5. With these observations I am of the view that there is no force in the revision petition and. is, accordingly, dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.