' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner-complainant seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur vide order, dated 21-2-2003, for which detailed reasons were recorded on 25-4-2003.
2. Respondents are employed in Police Department with the exception of respondent No,4 Abdul Khaliq alias Shahzado, who is serving as Clerk in the office of Union Council, Qadirpur and respondent No,5 Abdul Rehman serving as Primary Teacher, All the respondents are involved in F.I.R.
No,99 of 2001 registered at Police Station Ghotki in relation to the murder of deceased Ghulam Nabi committed at about 7-35 p.m. On 19-5-2001. Active part of firing from their respective kalashnikovs has been attributed to respondent Abdul Karim alias Karim Bux and Abdul Khalique alias Shahzado; role of instigation is ascribed to respondent Abdul Sattar, who is stated to be suffering from paralysis while act of indiscriminate firing from their rifles has been attributed to respondents Abdul Shakoor and Abdul Rehman. According to the F.I.R., there appears to be background of hostile relationship between the parties for long time.
3. After the registration of the crime, investigation was taken in hand and three different agencies found the respondents not connected with the commission of the crime for respondents Abdul Karim alias Karim Bux and Abdul Sattar were statedly found to be available on duty on the material day far away from place of incident. On the consistent and persistent complaints of the petitioner, fourth investigation team was constituted to look into his grievance, which however, recommended to send up all the accused, whereupon respondents were prosecuted in absentia in terms of section 512, Cr.P.C.
4. Respondents apprehending arrest applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge Ghotki, who declined the same after recalling interim pre-arrest bail granted to them by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo. Order of learned Sessions Judge, Ghotki is dated 20-3- 2002. Respondents then approached the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench and, as stated at the Bar by Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, their learned counsel, they were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail, which after hearing both the sides was confirmed, as stated above.
5. The grounds, which weighed with the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court for the exercise of discretion in favor of respondents appear to be the opinion of three Investigating Officers, tendency to involve the whole family of the accused, old enmity between the parties, non- matching of the empties found from the place of incident as well as the fact that adverse opinion rendered by fourth Investigating Officer was by a junior officer.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, who has supported the impugned order before us.
7. Mr. Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents having been nominated in the F.I.R., active role of firing from kalashnikovs at the deceased attributed to two of them and three of the respondents being police officials, no case of mala fides on the part of prosecution and the existence of extraordinary circumstances for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail was made out.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the submissions and dilating upon the merits and demerits of the prosecution case, which might prejudice the case of either side, suffice it to say that the discretion exercised by the High Court does not suffer from any apparent illegality or arbitrariness. Learned Judge in the High Court appears to have weighed the facts and circumstances of the case carefully for the limited purposes of grant or otherwise of the bail, which does not warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. It may further be pointed out that the respondents during the last more than two years having enjoyed the concession of bail without misusing it should not be put behind the bars by recalling the bail order at this stage.
9. While declining leave to appeal against the impugned order we would direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and complete it as quickly as possible so as to finally decide the fate of the case.
It may also be clarified that the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by the High Court or by this Court in the backdrop of the prayer for bail or cancellation thereof.
10. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.