1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.----This petition for special leave to appeal is preferred from the order dated 1-11-1978 of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3108-B of 1978 whereby bail granted to the petitioners in a case pending against them under section 302/34, P. P.
2. C. Was cancelled.
3. An F. I. R. Regarding the occurrence which took place in the area of village Monawali, 8 miles away from Police Station, Kharian, District Gujrat, was lodged against the petitioners and their co- accused, Ghulam Elahi, on the report of Fazal Elahi (complainant) on 8-10-1976 at 5-30 p.m. The prosecution case as disclosed therein is that the complainant, who is a 'resident of village Marali, went to village Mango to see his sister, Mst. Zenab Bibi. At 4 p.m. When the complainant along with his maternal nephew, Munawar Hussain, were returning to their village, they were confronted by the petitioners (both armed with knives) and their co-accused, Ghulam Elahi (empty-handed). The co-accused, Ghulam Elahi, challenged Munawar Hussain that he would not be spared and at the same time caught hold of him by his hair. Muhammad Ashraf (petitioner No. 1) attacked Munawar Hussain and gave two successive knife blows in his abdomen. Tariq (petitioner No. 2) also attacked and gave two successive knife blows on his back and chest. Thereafter both the petitioners inflicted successive knife blows on his head and shoulders; Muhammad Ashraf (petitioner No. 1) gave the final blow on his head which left the knife firmly stuck and lodged in the wound. Munawar Hussain fell down and succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.
4. The two accused petitioners, after their arrest along with the co-accused, Ghulam Elahi, applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, which was allowed vide order dated 20-5-78, mainly on the ground of non-submission of the challan observing that the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to recall the bail of the petitioners on the submission of the challan and after recording of some evidence, if it came to the conclusion that reasonable grounds existed regarding the guilt of the petitioners: The complainant, Fazal Elahi, however, moved the Lahore High Court (Cr. Misc. No. 3018-B of 1978) for the cancellation of bail allowed to the petitioners which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the said Court and the bail of the petitioners cancelled by his order dated 1-11-78. He held that the challan had since been submitted and received by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat (on 20-6-78) and reasonable grounds existed for believing the petitioners to be guilty of the offences alleged against then, they were accordingly not entitled to remain on bail any longer. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by this order have, therefore, filed this petition for leave to appeal.
5. Mr. Mohammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners, who were arrested soon after 8-10-76, remained confined in the judicial lock-up until 23-5-78 on account of the non-submission of challan by the Investigating authorities. The benefit of this default was rightly given to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat by granting them bail.. The effect of the petitioners having remained in custody for 19 months could not be nullified simply by the submission of the challan. The learned Judge had not addressed himself to this aspect of the case but proceeded to cancel the bail merely on the ground that the challan had since been received by the learned Sessions Judge. He further submitted that the 'petitioner No. 1, Muhammad Ashraf, was admittedly less than 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and coupled with inordinate delay that had occurred, he, at least, merited the concession of bail. The submission further was that the learned judge had segregated the two grounds namely that of delay and minority. The proper approach would have been to consider the cumulative effect of all these circumstances and submitted that if this was done, his bail could not have been cancelled. In support of these contentions, reliance was placed on Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. The State (1979SCMR.9) and Siraj Din v. Saghiruddin (1970 S CMR30).
6. We observe that these contentions have been considered by the learned Judge in the High Court and repelled and it is not correct to say that the had not applied his mind to the facts of the case.
7. The discretion exercised by the High Court does not appear to have been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. We do not think it a fit case which calls for interference at this stage. However, this case should be given priority and heard at an early date.
8. Subject to the above observations, this petition is dismissed.