' Mehr Din lodged first information report at Police Station, Pattoki on 24th September 1977, with regard to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on the same day within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station in which Asghar was killed. Five persons, namely, Alamdar, Atta Muhammad, Safdar Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Nazar Hussain were named in the first information report.
Alamdar (absconder) was alleged to be armed with a chhura, Atta Muhammad with a chhuri, Safdar with a sota, Mumtaz with a knife and Nazar Hussain with a rifle.
' Nazar Hussain was admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur vide his order dated 15th November, 1977, while Atta Muhammad and Sardar Ali were allowed bail on 21st January, 1978. Mehr Din tried for their cancellation of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, but he failed. Thereafter he filed two petitions (Cr. Misc. Nos. 4733-B-77 and No, 357-B-78) in this Court. Both the petitions should be disposed of by this order.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions contended that the accused- respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail because of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and that of the application of section 149, P.P.C. He further submitted that if no overt act had been assigned to Nazar Hussain and Atta Muhammad that would not diminsih their criminal liability nor would they be entitled to the concession of bail. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel relied on Chiragh Din and others v. The State (1).
It was further argued that so far as Sardar Ali is concerned he was active member of the unlawful assembly because he inflicted dang blows on Muhammad Tufail P. W. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the shoes recovered from the spot fitted the accused which proved their presence at the place of occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the State supported both the petitions and adopted the same arguments as advanced by Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan.
' However, learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed both the petitions and submitted that the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference.
(1) PLD 1967 SC 340 ' On merits he submitted that Nazar Hussain was found innocent by the police and so far as the injuries of the deceased were concerned, though four in number but from the post-mortem report it is obvious that two of the injuries were the result of one blow ; the number of accused involved did not rule out the possibility of innocent persons being implicated. He further submitted that taking the prosecution case on its face value it is at the most a case of individual liability and the mere application of section 149, P. P. C. Would not mean that the Courts were debarred from examining the question of criminal liability for the purpose of bail. In support of this, learned counsel, relied on Haq Nawaz v. Ilyas (1) and Sultan and others v. The State (2).
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The most important point to be considered for cancellation of bail is whether the discretion exercised by the trial Court was in a judicial manner and in accordance with the well-recognised principles of administration of criminal justice. Here I may further observe that the considerations for cancellation of bail are much different than those for the grant of bail ; for cancellation the scope is narrowed down and there must exist grounds to show that the reasons given by the trial Court were not warranted by law and for that matter I do not think there is any legal impediment for the Courts to examine the question of criminal liability of each accused, irrespective of application of section 149, P.P.C., nevertheless, this must be done with utmost precaution because any expression of opinion at such a premature stage is likely to prejudice the case of either side. Therefore, each and every case is to be dealt with according to its own merits.
5. In the instant case, two of the accused, namely, Nazar Hussain and Atta Muhammad had not been assigned any overt act. Safdar Ali injured Muhammad Tufail, a prosecution witness, who had tour blunt - weapon simple injuries. These are important factors and they have to be weighed while considering the question of bail.
6. In the present case, I am of the view that the discretion exercised by the trial Court calls for no interference. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.