' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Muhammad Fayyaz and Asif Ayub (petitioners) seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.208, dated 13-4-2011, under sections 302, 109, 148, 149 P.P.C., of registered at Police Station Barki, Lahore, on the complaint of Suleman Saeed.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners is that they being armed with Kalashnikov and rifle .222 bore fired indiscriminately at Haji Altaf Hussain and committed his instantaneous murder at about 1-00 p.m. On 13-4-2011 in the background of previous pitched enmity between the parties involving the murder of Salah-ud-Din; the real brother of Haji Altar Hussain, deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case under a conspiracy, in the backdrop of previous enmity of murders between the parties; the petitioners were not present in Pakistan on the day of, the alleged occurrence as their sojourn in Thailand from 5-4-2011 to 15-4-2011 was verified and believed by the Investigating Officer who minutely scanned the travel-documents of the petitioners to formulate the said opinion; the story of the F.I.R. Was found false even against three co-accused of the petitioners namely Adnan Ali, Tahir alias Mithu and Tariq Ali who have been placed in Column No.2 of the challan; the complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 14-4-2011 whereby he changed the tenor of the occurrence as contained in the F.I.R.; the petitioners are not linked with the crime in any manner and data collected by the investigating officer renders their case one of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 31-8-2012 has directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within four months so propriety demands that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan may be followed and learned trial Court may be afforded an opportunity to comply with the aforesaid direction of the apex court; the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not based on any cogent or plausible material which has been formulated by him being in league with the accused; the petitioners have been assigned the main role in the F.I.R. As they, having armed themselves with lethal weapons effectively fired at the deceased and committed their murder; the complainant did not render any supplementary statement during the course of investigation and it was a product of impious liaison between the Investigating Officer and the accused; lastly submits that the offences, the petitioners are charged with, catch the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, the prayer of the petitioners may not be granted.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioners were granted bail before arrest by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25-6-2011 which was recalled by this court vide order dated 11-11-2011, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8287-BC of 2011. Subsequent thereto the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No.969-L of 2011, which was dismissed on 13-12-2011, as not pressed with the observation that "since the High Court had discussed the merits of the case for the purpose of bail, including observations regarding the plea of Alibi taken by the petitioners, the applications so moved by the petitioners shall be decided uninfluenced by such observations."
The petitioners were arrested in this case on 19-12-2011. They applied for their post arrest bail before the learned trial Court which was dismissed on 25-1-2012.
6. The complainant of this case Suleman Saeed also filed a petition before the apex court, in relation to aforesaid order of this court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 31-8-2012, with an observation in following terms:-- "We, however, expect that considering the delay which has already occurred in concluding the trial of the case, the learned trial Court shall make efforts to decide the case expeditiously and if possible conclude the trial within four months from today."
7. It is noteworthy that both the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, as noted above, were passed after hearing, the learned counsel for the parties at some length or at great length, as is evident from the said orders.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the learned trial Court on receipt of the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding conclusion of trial within four months categorically directed the prosecution on the last date of hearing to ensure the availability of all of its witnesses on the next date of hearing i.e. 10-10-2012 on which date, it plans to indict the accused and record the prosecution evidence. The commencement ot''the trial is within sight and every probability exists that the direction of the apex Court for conclusion of the trial in the given time would be complied with by the learned trial Court and there is no reason to underestimate the intention of the learned trial Court, in respect thereto. Let the learned trial Court be afforded an opportunity to follow the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan meticulously to conclude the trial within the IA stipulated time-period.
9. The plea of alibi of the accused-petitioners, as raised by them in investigation, requires scrutiny of their oral as well as documentary evidence which may not be an advisable exercise to resort to at this stage because of its delicacies and subtleties. It may not be appropriate at this juncture to dilate upon the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, though tentatively, which touch the merits of the melancholic story lest it should prejudice anyone's case at trial. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept this application which is dismissed accordingly.