1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Present applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court per order dated 12-4-2010. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the names of Muhammad Alam and Miskeen have been shown in column No,2 whereas case of applicant Yaseen has been challaned. Learned counsel further says that though names of Muhammad Alam and Miskeen have been shown in column No,2 and he would have not pressed their bail application, but the complainant side has moved to the trial Court under section 193, Cr.P.C. praying, therein to join them in the trial as well and . such application is pending adjudication.
2. ' Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the confirmation of bail. He says that accused persons are involved in a heinous offence which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and their bail may not be confirmed. He says that there is ample material available on record to connect the applicants with the commission of offence: ' Learned DPG has argued that since names of applicants Muhammad Alam and Miskeen are shown in column, No:2 this bail application has become infructuous, but he does not say anything about applicant Yaseen. However, he says that this bail application be dismissed as having become infructuous.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 'have gone through the record. Since applicant Yaseen has already been challaned and for joining of applicants Muhammad Alam and Miskeen in the trial, application under section 193, Cr.P.C. is pending adjudication before the trial Court. In these circumstances, order dated 12-4-2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
4. ' Needless to mention here that if the complainant party succeeds in getting application under section 193, Cr.P.C. allowed by the trial Court, further action in accordance with law be taken.
5. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.