' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent was named in the F.I.R.; that he held the deceased with Japha; that the rifle which was belonging to the deceased was recovered from the respondent; that charge was framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6-3-2006; that he had summoned the prosecution witnesses for 13-3-2006; that on the said date prosecution witnesses were present but he did not record their statements and thereafter he granted bail to the respondent vide order, dated 15-3-2006 without mentioning the fact that the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced. He has relied upon Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State 1980 SCM R 203, Hakim Ali and 3 others v. The State 1979 SCM R 114 and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 2002 SCM R 1381.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has been falsely implicated in this case; that he was arrested and was severely tortured by the police and when he was near to death the police in order to save their skin got a false case registered against the respondent under section 325, P.P.C., that five witnesses have already been examined and case is fixed for evidence tomorrow; that case of respondent was of further inquiry falling under subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And it will not be possible at this stage to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. He has relied upon 2004 SCM R 231, 2003 YLR 1596, 1999 PCr.LJ 868, 2004 YLR 400, 1999 PCr.LJ 799 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1262.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Case was registered on 23-5-2005 at 4-15 a.m.
Agains't five persons while the occurrence had taken place on the same night at 2-15 a.m. Two persons were named in the F.I.R. One is present .Respondent and other is Irshad who is proclaimed offender. It is a case of lurking house trespass with intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd. Three accused were shown to be unknown. The contents of F.I.R. Also show that the rifle belonging to the deceased was stolen from his house by his co-accused and the same was recovered from the present respondent.
4. I am unable to understand that learned Additional Sessions Judge who had taken cognizance of this case, framed the charge on 6-3-2006 A and had summoned the prosecution witnesses for 13- 3-2006, on the same day prosecution witnesses were present and he did not record their statements and granted bail to the respondent on 15-3-2006 for the reasons best known to him. I have gone through the passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge which is not upto the mark.
He should have mentioned the fact that the charge has already been framed. The Honourable Supreme Court had held in case titled Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State 1980 SCM R 203, when the charge is framed and trial is likely to be commenced, bail cannot be granted. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has violated the judgment passed by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. Respondent is named in the F.I.R. With specific role. He was responsible for the murder of deceased and has been charged under section 460, P.P.C. Complainant has no malice or ulterior motive against respondent to falsely implicate him in this case. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the bail already granted to the respondent is hereby withdrawn. He shall be taken into custody and shall be produced before learned trial Court tomorrow because the case is fixed for evidence. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent are totally inapplicable in this case. A copy of this order be sent to learned Additional Sessions Judge for his guidance and he is directed to be careful in future while deciding the such-like cases.
Bail cancelled.