1975 PLP 139 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑--Altaf Hussain petitioner herein has felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 4‑9‑1974, whereby bail already allowed to the respondent, a B. Sc. student of the Engineering University, in a case of murder was extended to enable him to prosecute his studies subject to the reservation that in the event of committal, it would be open to the Committing Magistrate to consider the question of cancellation.

2. The occurrence took place on 8‑11‑1972 of which the report was lodged by the petitioner the same day with the police. The respondent was allowed interim bail by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 22‑12‑1972 to enable him to take the examination which was scheduled to commence on the 25th of January 1973. He was, however, directed to surrender himself on the conclusion of the examination. It appears as soon as the examination was over he surrendered himself to the authorities but again applied for bail which was allowed to him by another learned Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 14‑3‑1974 to enable him to appear in the Supplementary Examination again subject to the condition of surrender ing himself on the conclusion of the examination. The third order of enlargement in the series is the one impugned in this petition which proceeds on the consideration of enabling the respondent to continue his studies.

3. In support of the petition for leave, learned counsel contended before us that prosecution of studies should not have been considered a good ground for grant of bail in a case of murder particularly when the respondent had been directly implicated by eye‑witnesses.

4. In response to a query as to the stage of proceedings, it was brought to our notice by the counsel for the respondent that so far only 9 out of 28 witnesses have been examined and that the other co‑accused of the respondent had also been granted bail by the High Court on the ground of inordinate delay in the conclusion of inquiry. Correctness of this position was not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who, however, contended that the case of the respondent had been considered by the High Court on an absolutely different and untenable ground.

5. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel in the light of the background of the case and in particular the three bail orders passed by the High Court from time to time, we are convinced that the respondent did comply with the requirement of surrendering himself on the conclusion of both the examinations. The inordinate delay in the conclusion of inquiry which is not yet in sight would also be equally avail able to the respondent alongwith his other co‑accused who too have been allowed bail. There is nothing to indicate that it was a case of improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court justifying the interference of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.