1. DORAB PATEL, J. One Ismail son of Hakam Din was murdered in December, 1976 and according to learned counsel ten persons are being tried for the murder, some of whom are on bail. However, we are concerned in this petition for leave with only two of these ten accused, namely, Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Aslam. Because the first respondent who is the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh) granted bail to Muhammad Ismail on 11-4-1978 and to Muhammad Aslam on 21-9- 1978, the petitioner who is the complainant in the murder case filed an application in the Lahore High Court for the transfer of the murder case from the Court of the first respondent to that of "some other competent Court of jurisdic--petition." It is hardly surprising that this transfer application was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4-10- 1978 and this petition for leave has been filed against the said order of the Lahore High Court.
2. We pointed out to learned counsel that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court granting bail to the said Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Aslam, he had other remedies.
3. But, according to learned counsel, the mere grant of bail was sufficient to justify the petitioner's apprehensions that the trial would not be fair, because the bail orders were contrary to the orders of the Lahore High Court in an earlier round of litigation about bail between the parties, therefore, we would briefly refer to the facts on which learned counsel relied.
4. We would first try and examine the case of Muhammad Ismail, We have to use the words "try and examine" with regret, because the petition for leave is not properly documented. Be this as it may, Muhammad Ismail had applied for bail twice .In 1977 and according to learned counsel these applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court, Muzaffargarh on 16-3-1977 and on 10-6-1977.
5. Next, according to learned counsel, Muhammad Ismail sought bail from the Lahore High Court but as this application was dismissed on 7-8-1977, Muhammad Ismail filed a second application for bail which was also dismissed, and, according to learned counsel, the application for the transfer of the case from the Court of the first respondent was justified, because the order of the first respondent dated 11-4-1978 by which he had granted bail to Muhammad Ismail was contrary to the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing Muhammad Ismail's bail application for the second time. But the orders of the Lahore High Court are not before us and it was only on our enquiries that we were informed that the order of the Lahore High Court was passed on 25-4-1978. But the first respondent's order granting bail to Muhammad Ismail was passed on 11-4-1978, therefore, we are unable to understand learned counsel's submission that the first respon--dent's order of I 1-4-1978 was perverse or illegal, because it was in disregard of the High Court's order of 25-4-1978.
6. Obviously, when he passed the impugned order the first respondent had no means of knowing what the decision of the Lahore High Court was going to be on Muhammad Ismail's second bail application.
7. We have observed earlier that this petition for leave has not been properly documented. This is because the petitioner has neither filed the Lahore High Court's order of 7-8-1977 nor the Lahore High Court's order of 25-4-1978. When we expressed our regret at the petitioner's failure to file documents which were obviously crucial to his case, learned counsel wanted to produce a copy of the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing Muhammad Ismail's second bail application on 25- 4-1978. We have not permitted him to do so, because the copy was not a certified copy, and, because we do not see how learned counsel can contend that the first respondent had deliberately flouted the order of the Lahore High Court, because his order was contrary to an order passed by the High Court two weeks later. Additionally, even the first order of the Lahore High Court is not available, nor has learned counsel filed a copy of the bail application, which was allowed by the first respondent on 11-4-1978, therefore, the petitioner has failed even to show that the first respondent's order of 11-4-1978 .Was an erroneous exercise of his discretion under section 497, Cr. P.
8. C. In these circumstances we are unable to understand how the transfer of the Sessions case from the Court of the first respondent can be allowed on the ground that bail had been illegally granted to Muhammad Ismail.
9. We now turn to learned counsel's submission about the order of 21-9-1978 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, granted bail to Muhammad Aslam. Once again learned counsel relied on the fact that the Sessions Court bad dismissed two earlier applications by Muhammad Aslam for bail in 1977. But, as we will presently show, the fact that these bail applications were dismissed is completely irrelevant because the Lahore High Court held on 21-5- 1978 that Muhammad Aslam had been illegally detained. Now, despite this order of the High Court, which has become final, learned counsel stated that his plea for a transfer of the case was supported by the fact that the Lahore High Court had dismissed the bail application of Muhammad Aslam on two earlier occasions. When we invited learned counsel to inform us about the grounds on which these applications had been. Dismissed, learned counsel was not even able to give us the dates of these orders as they were not with him and had not been filed with the petition for leave.
10. However, nothing whatever turns on these orders, because learned counsel admitted that the High Court's order of 21-5-1978 granting bail to Muhammad Aslam had become final. Now even this order has not been filed, but, the first respondent, who appears to have discharged his duties con- -scientiously, has in his order of 27-6-1978, referred to the Lahore High Court's order of 21-5-1978, and it is from this reference in the order of the first respondent that we learn that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of section 344, Cr. P. C. Therefore, Muhammad Aslam's detention was illegal, and all the orders dismissing his bail applications were likewise illegal, because the attention of the Courts had not been drawn to this violation of the provisions of section 344, Cr. P. C. Further it would appear from the well-considered orders of the first respondent, that the High Court had observed in its order of 21-5-1978 that the Sessions Court should decide the question whether Muhammad Aslam should remain on bail pending his trial, therefore, the petition had filed an application that the bail granted to Muhammad Aslam should be cancelled. Muhammad Aslam opposed this application, and, as one of the grounds, on which he had opposed this application, was that he was a sick person, he had, produced a medical certificate. The petitioner had challenged this medical certificate and the first respondent very properly directed that Muhammad Aslam should be examined by the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Muzaffargarh, and learned counsel's submission was that this certificate of the Superintendent proved that the medical certificate produced by Muhammad Aslam was false. But, unfortunately for this plea, when the petitioner's application came up for hearing before the first respondent on 21-9-1978, neither he nor learned counsel were present on this date, therefore, the first respondent carefully examined the grounds on which the cancellation of bail was opposed and he dismissed the petitioner's application by his order dated 21-9-1978.
11. Now, according to learned counsel, this order granting bail was so illegal that justice would not be seen to be done if the first respondent was allowed to proceed with the hearing of the case. As we do not wish to make any observations which would prejudice the case of the parties in the Sessions Court, we would only observe that we were surprised by this submission, but learned counsel stated-he relied on the fact that the medical certificate produced by Muhammad Aslam was false.
12. Assuming for the sake of argument that that certificate was false, there were other grounds on which bail had been sought by Muhammad Aslam. As this is very clear from the first respondents order we invited learned counsel to inform us about these other grounds on which Muhammad Aslam had resisted the cancellation of bail. As learned counsel was not able to give any answer to our enquiry, we would only observe that if the petitioner is aggrieved by this order, he has other remedies. But as all the grounds on which Muhammad Aslam had opposed the cancellation of bail, are not known even at this stage, this petition is only fit to be dismissed. However, before parting with this order, we consider it our duty to state that absolutely no grounds have been made out in the petition for the transfer of the case from the Court of the first respondent and we are constrained to express our regret that wholly unjustified allegations have been made against this respondent. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.