NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 5-7-1978 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1/78 in Criminal Appeal No. 458/78, whereby the petitioners' appeal against their convictions and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each under section 366/149 P. P. C., awarded to them, besides others, by a learned Magistrate of Sec--petition 30, Multan, were entertained and bail during the pendency of their appeal was refused.
2. The facts forming the background briefly stated, are that the complainant, Rukan Din (P. W. 3), lodged a report at Police Station Makhdum Rashid on 14-2-1975 at about 8-30 p.m. Stating that on the same day at 2-00 p.m., he was sitting in his house along with his daughter-in-law, Mst. Batool Begum, P. W. Wali Muhammad father of Mst. Batool Begum), Ulfat Begum and Muhammad Sharif, when the petitioner, herein, Irshad, Karim Dad and Asghar A.I along with 8 others, namely, Fateh Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf, Farzand A.I, Muhammad Anwar, Shaukat A.I, Hakim A.I alias Malhi, Alamgeer and Noor Muhammad (all armed with sticks) tres--passed into the premises. The accused Farzand A.I, Irshad (petitioner No. 1), Asghar A.I (petitioner No. 3) and Shaukat A.I started dragging his daughter---in-law, Mst. Batool Begum, who tried to resist but they forcibly brought her outside the house. He tried to intervene and rescue his daughter-in-law, but the remaining accused raised lalkaras and threatened them not to come near to rescue Mst. Batool Begum. They also gave him stick blows and caused him injuries and thereafter all the accused succeeded in taking away Mst. Batool Begum. The complainant raised alarm whereupon P. Ws., Khalil Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif reached the scene and saw the occurrence. They too tried to rescue Mst. Batool Begum, but were threatened with dire consequences.
3. The motive was that Mst. Irshad, wife of the accused, Farzand A.I, had eloped with Ashiq A.I, son of Rukan Din (the complainant) about 12/13 days prior to the occurrence and, therefore, the accused, who were inter se related, nursed a grudge and in order to avenge their insult abducted Mst. Batool Begum. A case under section 148/149,566/376/452, P. P. C. Was, accordingly, registered against them and they were tried by a learned Magistrate of Section 30, Multan.
4. At the trial, twelve witnesses in support of the prosecution case were examined while the accused produced four witnesses in their defence. The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment dated 15-5-1978, acquitted the accused, Hakim A.I Noor Muhammad, Shaukat A.I and Alarngeer giving them the benefit of doubt but convicted and sentenced Irshad, Karim Dad, Fateh Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf, Asghar A.I, Farzand A.I and Muhammad Anwar to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each under section 147, P. P. C., 3 years each under section 152/149, P.P.C., and 4 years each under section 366/149, P. P. C. The accused, Farzand A.I, in addition to the above sentences, was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprison--ment for a period of 7 years under section 376, P. P. C. All their sentences were to run concurrently.
5. The petitioners along with their co-accused, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Ashraf, then preferred an Appeal (Criminal No. 458/78) in the Lahore High Court which was admitted to a regular hearing. A separate application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1978) for suspension of their convictions and sentences was also moved. The matter was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who by his order dated 5-7-1978 accepted the plea of suspension of convictions and sentences raised on behalf of Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Ashraf but the prayer made in this behalf by the petitioners was rejected on the ground that as the petitioner No. 1, Irshad and petitioner No. 3, Asghar A.I, were named by Mst. Batool Begum, the prosecutrix herself, as two of the four persons who physically caught hold of her arms and took her to the house of Farzand A.I (co-accused) where she was raped ; further that the petitioner No. 1, Irshad and petitioner No. 2, Karim Dad, were also named by the com--plainant, Rukan Din (P. W. 3), as two of the three persons who caused injuries to him while he tried to prevent the assailants from abducting Mst. Batool Begum, his daughter-in-law. The petitioners are aggrieved of this order.
Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
6. The learned counsel, Mr. Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, appearing in support of this petition contends that the petitioners, herein, have been refused the concession of bail by the learned Single Judge of the High Court arbitrarily without their being any real distinction between their case and that of their co-accused, Muhammad Ashraf and Fateh Muhammad, who have been released on bail by the High Court, as such they are entitled to the concession of bail.
7. We have carefully examined the above contention but find no substance in it. The case of the petitioners before us prima facie is distinguish--able from that of the co-accused who have been allowed bail as specific parts have been attributed to them. However, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any error of law or violation of any principle of justice to warrant inference in the discretionary order of the High Court.
8. As a result, we find no reason to interfere at this stage with the impugned order passed by the High Court. This petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.