1994 PLP 1230 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 22‑2‑1993 whereby Criminal Miscellaneous No.638‑B/93 seeking cancellation of bail allowed to Waqar Zafar and Inam Zafar respondents by an Additional Sessions Judge, was dismissed. The leave grant order reads as under:‑‑ "The accused/respondents No.1 and 2 alongwith 4 others are charged under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. and section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for the murder of Iltaf Hussain and effective firing at Fida Hussain and Muhammad Siddiqui, which took place in the premises of the Court on 11‑11‑1991. In the complaint filed by the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to issue process against respondents Nos.l and 2 on 20‑4‑1992. The learned Additional Sessions Judge then granted bail to the respondents and his co‑accused on 7‑5‑1992. The order granting bail to the accused was set aside by the learned High Court on 30‑5‑1992. Petition for Leave to Appeal (No. 64 of 1992) challenging the order of learned High Court was dismissed by this Court on 24‑6‑1992 and review petition against the same withdrawn on 22‑7‑1992. The accused/respondents Nos.l and 2 thereafter surrendered before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and they were again released on bail by order dated 5‑11‑1992. Petition for cancellation of their bail was dismissed by the learned High Court on 22‑2‑1993. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the High Court on the ground given therein. Leave is granted on the facts and circumstances of the case to consider; whether the learned High Court has misread the record and misapplied law in refusing to interfere with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge."

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to the respondents on the grounds (a) according to the F.I.R. and the complaint they were alleged to have caused injuries to Fida Hussain but neither the injured nor the P.Ws. had specifically attributed the injuries to them nor it was mentioned which part of the body was hit by the fire; (b) the injuries of Fida Hussain were declared by doctor to be grievous but there was no evidence of fracture; Fida Hussain had no injury on any vital part of the body; no injury to the deceased was attributed to the respondents and lastly that there was a cross version.

3. After going through the record we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail had not given proper attention to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected by the investigating agency. The prosecution witnesses including the injured .are yet to be examined. However, in the F.I.R. it was clearly stated that the respondents herein fired at Fida Hussain and injured him. His injuries were later on declared dangerous to life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge completely lost sight of the fact that it was an occurrence in which the respondents and their co‑accused were allowed to have caused fire‑arm injuries to three persons right in the Court premises as a result of which one of the injured later on expired in the hospital. He also took no notice of his observation made in the first round that there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that they have been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. As regards the cross‑version, admittedly the F.I.R. of cross‑case was quashed by the High Court and the private complaint was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an Intra Court Appeal and a revision petition against the said orders were pending in the High Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that at the moment the F.I.R. and the complaint stand annulled by competent forums. It is also an admitted fact that a case under sections 148 and 506/149, P.P.C. was registered against the respondents on 17‑5‑1993 for an occurrence which also took place in the Court premises and they had been challaned for the same. Thus, prima facie, they appeared to have abused the concession of bail and forfeited the right to enjoy the said concession. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the Courts below and cancel the bail allowed to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge. They shall be (sic).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant also complained that the respondents and their co‑accused were adopting delaying tactics and were not allowing the trial to proceed. The case has already been fixed for hearing. The learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case as early as possible. N.H.Q./A‑1078/S Bail cancelled.