Khushal Khan father of Muhammad Qayyum petitioner was murdered on 16th April, 1980, regarding which he (Muhammad Qayyum) lodged report at Police Station Barki on the same day at 8.30 a. m.
Ten persons were hauld up under section 302 and other sections of the Penal Code. Out of these, Talib Hussain. Akbar and Safdar are still in Jail.
The seven respondents in this application whose bail the petitioner now prays for cancellation were admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge, by different orders. Out of these seven persons, Muhammad Rafiq Abdul Rahim and Saghir Ahmad are accused for the murder of Khushal Khan.
The petitioner applied for the cancellation of bail of the seven respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, but his application was dismissed by order dated 27July, 1980. Thereafter the petitioner filed this petition under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C. For cancellation of bail of the respondents in which by order dated 11th August, 1980, I issued notice to the respondents to show cause why their bail be not cancelled.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Before discussing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I would like to observe that the counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the learned counsel for the petitioner for cancellation of bail.
2-A. The grounds urged in support of this petition were that the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in admitting the respon--dents to bail was not in accordance with law. Even though all of them have not actually attacked the deceased, nevertheless, they were conspira-- tors and had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object.
It was further submitted that or every charge against the respondents there is material evidence.
As such the respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail.th It was next contended that after having been released on bail, the respondents misused the concession. In support of this, learned counsel drew my attention to the copies of certain reports lodged by the petitioner with the Police.
It was submitted that was not the end. The petitioner was actually attacked by the respondents, as a result of which a case under section 325/148/149, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station Barki on 26th June, 1980.
Learned counsel submitted that this is definite and clear proof as to how the respondents behaved after having been admitted to bail.
3. Counsel for the respondents opposed this application on the ground that there was no truth in the reports lodged of and on by the petitioner, but this was done with the purpose to create evidence so that the respondents could be falsely implicated and their bail cancelled.
It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the trial is to commence on the 7th of September 1980, therefore, no useful purpose will be served if the bail of the respondents is cancelled at this stage.
4. I have taken all these contentions into consideration. The only ground which appeals to me and which has force is that a criminal case under section 325, P. P. C. Was registered against the respondents. The petitioner was the complainant and victim of assault in that case. He is alleged to have received a barchhi blow on his neck.
The case of Muhammad Rafiq son of Din Muhammad, Abdul Rahim son of Nizam Din and Saghir Ahmad son of Abdul Rahim respondents is distinguishable from the remaining four respondents, namely, Muhammad Ramzan, Rehmat. Munir Ahmad and Saghir Ahmad son of Fateh Muhammad, because in the main murder case the charge against them is under section 302, P. P. C. Whereas the remaining four respondents have been charged under section 302/109, P. P. C. In the case under section 325, P. P. C. The aforesaid three respondents have not only been named, but specific role has been assigned to Muhammad Rafiq and Abdul Rahim. The allegation against Saghir Ahmad was that he was armed with a gun. I am, therefore of the view that so far as aforesaid Muhammad Rafiq, Abdul Rahim and Saghir Ahmad are concerned, they are not entitled to remain on bail, because they have misused the concession. The mere fact that the trial is to commence on the 7th September 1980, is no ground to dismiss this petition. On the other hand, I am of the view that there is all the more reasons that these respondents should remain behind the bars, so that a fair trial a guaranteed.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I cancel the bail of Muhammad Rafique son of Din Muhammad, Abdul Rahim son of Nizam Din and Saghir Ahmad son of Abdul Rahim. They shall be arrested forthwith and sent to prison. The petition qua other respondents is dismissed.