1. ' S. S. Shaikh learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the bail which has been granted to the respondents Hidayatullah and Saeedullah by this High Court on 16th May, 1978 should be cancelled as the respondents had committed a dastardly attack on injured [small and had caused him 9 bullet injuries and he was under medical treatment for about 2 months. The offence in this case had taken place on 19th November 1976 and it was alleged to have been witnessed by Haji Rahim Gul and of course the injured Ismail, who was ambushed at 8 p. m. And was given 9 bullet injuries out of which 8 have been declared to be dangerous. The F. I. R. Was recorded on the same day at 9-15 p. m. Whereby Haji Rahim Gul had named the assailant as related to him by the injured. The respondents' application for bail before arrest was rejected on 4th March 1973 on merits. The High Court has also rejected their bail application on 29th April 1977. However, on 12th September 1977 the Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the respondents on the ground of 8 months delay in the holding of the trial as by that time only one witness Capt. Ishaque had been examined who was not an eye-witness. The injured moved the High Court for cancellation of bail which was granted by High Court on 1st April 1978. The High Court cancelled the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the injured was still under treatment. I may here take note of the fact that the injured Ismail had been accused of an offence of double murder in Peshawar. The bail granted to him by the Magistrate at Peshawar was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on 20th April 1978 on the ground that Ismail was not suffering from any disease which needed specialized treatment outside the Jail. The present respondent thereafter moved an application for bail before the High Court and attached the copies of the Medical Board and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in respect of injured Ismail along with their application for bail. The late Mr. Justice Jamaluddin H. Ahmed granted interim bail on 9th May 1978 and confirmed the same on 16th May 1978 on the ground that the injured was no longer under treatment and he was himself involved in a double murder case in Peshawar.
2. Mr. S. S. Shaikh has argued before me that the case at Peshawar against injured Ismail has no bearing on the present case against the respondent, and therefore, the same should not have been taken into consideration by the learned Judge. I am afraid that I will be acting as a Court of Appeal if I review the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that he should not have considered the particular aspect of the case. This ground could only be urged before the Supreme Court and not before me. Even the late Judge could not himself review that order on that basis.
3. ' Another ground taken by Mr. S. S. Shaikh is that the seriousness of the injuries deserved a serious consideration at the hand, of the learned Single Judge and in such cases bail is not ordinarily granted in such matters. Mr. Shaikh referred to number of rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court where bail which had been granted to those accused persons who had caused serious injuries upon injured and particularly in case of injuries by fire-arm, the bail had been cancelled.
4. This again could b a ground which could be urged before the Supreme Court in a petition and not in the High Court itself, and I find that the learned Judge has based his order on fresh material which had been produced before him and which had been procured after 1st April 1978 in respect of the treatment of the injured Ismail. The learned Judge has observed that injured Muhammad Ismail is himself accused of murder and is in Jail and that be is not under medical treatment for any of the injuries alleged to have been caused to him by the applicant. These were the fresh grounds which had been urged before the Honorable Judge and he has been pleased to gran bail on those grounds and since the matter of bail is the matter of discretion with the High Court, therefore he was competent to grant bail and I am not in a position to sit in judgment over his order. The application is therefore dismissed.