This is a petition for bail in a murder case. The allegations against the petitioners is that they along with certain others attacked Nathu deceased. They have not been attributed any specific part of having caused any injury to the deceased but both of them are said to have a motive and that they at various stages gave lalkaras in which they exhorted their co-accused to attack the deceased.
2. On an earlier petition (Cr. Misc. No. 2082 of 1969) this Court, released the petitioners, on bail the order reads as follows:- "Heard counsel. The petitioners are released on bail on m their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.
8,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. D. M., Sargodha."
That petition was admitted to hearing on 16-4-69 with the following order:- "Contends that Bakhsha did not take any part whatsoever in the assault and that Langoo alias Maulvi petitioner is only alleged to have raised a lalkara.
3. It appears that after the petitioners were released on bail, the prosecution, evidence was recorded during the commitment proceedings. As a result thereof, the petitioner and their co- accused, have been committed to stand trial: for an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C., by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 29-9-1970.
4. As a consequence of the aforesaid commitment order the learned Magistrate thought it fit to cancel the bail granted to to petitioners vide order of this Court dated 24-4-69. The petitioners applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the application. Therefore, this (repeated) petition under section 498, Cr. P. C. Has been filed in this Court.
5. It was admitted by my order dated 3rd November 1970, for consideration of the point raised by the learned counsel that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by the High Court. On merits, it was noted that the petitioners, are alleged; only, to have given a lalkara.
6. The learned counsel for the State, has conceded that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by this Court. He has referred to the same Division Bench judgment which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners (i.e. Noor Muhammad v. State (PLD 1964 Lah.
464). The learned counsel for the State, however, relying on this ruling contends that after setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate this Court, should cancel the bail granted to the petitioners, in exercise, of its powers under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Read with section 498, Cr. P. C. Undoubtedly the authority cited by the learned counsel supports the view that in such like situation, if the bail merits to be cancelled the High Court, has the power to cancel it.
7: On merits, the learned counsel for the State has urged that the petitioners having been committed to stand trial under section 302/34, P. P. C., the case' is covered by prohibition contained in section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. Therefore, the bail should be cancelled. He has relied on Muhammad Ayub v. Muhammad Hanif (1970 SCMR 143), to contend that when a person has been charged with an offence under section 302, P. P. C--- and has been committed stand trial, that is enough to come a conclusion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, on the other hand, relied on some earlier rulings of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, particularly the one in the case of Muhammad Ayub v.
Muhammad Yaqub and another (PLD 1966 SC 1003).
9. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners was noted and considered at some length by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of Muhammad Shafiq v.
Muhammad Hanif. Their Lordships also noticed some more subsequently judgments i.e. Nadara v.
Jamit Khan (PLD 1968 SC 310), Ghulam Farid and another v. State (1968 SCMR 80), Ahmad Bakhsh v. State (1969 SC- M R 266), and came to the following conclusions :- "It seems, therefore, that the subsequent view of this Court, is clearly to the effect that, where a prima facie case upon the taking of evidence, is found to exist, that is also ordinarily sufficient for holding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person charged with the offence is guilty."
Their Lordships after considering the provisions contained in sections 208 and 210, Cr. P. C.. Also made the following observations:- "To arrive at the state of mind required by section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code one has as of necessity, to go beyond the stage of mere belief as to the existence of "reasonable grounds. The Magistrate has to be "satisfied" that a prima facie, case has been made out. It is difficult, therefore, to appreciate, as to how it can possibly be argued that even though a prima facie case, has been made out there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused to- be guilty."
In the last para. Their Lordships observed as follows: "For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the contention advanced, by the learned counsel is not tenable in view of the subsequent opinions of this Court which have been, adverted- to earlier."
10. I have given my anxious thought to the question whether the bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 24-4-69 should be cancelled on the authority of the observations quoted above of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. I am of' the view that no additional or fresh ground has been urged on behalf of the petitioners which can be said to have arisen either out of the commitment order or subsequent thereto. This case, therefore, in my' view falls within the category of ordinary cases where commitment has been - ordered. I, therefore following in the case of Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Hanif and also the course adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in case .Of Nur Muhammad v. State, set side the order- passed by the learned Magistrate, in so far as it purports to cancel the bail grant--ed to the petitioners by this Court, but at the same that in exercise 8 of powers of this Court; to cancel the bail granted by this Court, hereby cancel the bail, granted to the petitioners vide order of this Court dated the 24th of April 1970.