1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Thisis a bail matter. The petitioner had been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura by order, dated 18-9-1976 but on appeal in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 660th of 1977, a learned Single Judge of the: Lahore High Court cancelled the ban of the petitioner.
2. In this case F. I. R. Was lodged by the complainant Muhammad Yusuf, It is Alleged that his younger brother Mohammad Younis used to work jointly for preparing silver leaves. He used to sleep in the, shop the night. It is further alleged that Ijaz Ahmed, Muhammad Tufail, Boota and Yunus son of Jhanda and Nazar Ahmad also used to prepare silver leaves in the shop alongwith the deceased Muhammad Yunus. According to the F. I. R. Muhammad Yusuf was going on 12-1-1976 towards village Kotwar when Muhammad Yunus met him, and told him that he had come from Lahore, after having made purchases. Muhammad Yusuf returned from village Kotwar at Isha time, and his mother told him that Muhammad Yunus was at the shop. On the following morning, at about 8 a.m.
3. Complainant was informed by Khadim Hussain that Muhammad Yunus had been murdered by somebody, and his dead body was lying in the shop. Tile petitioner was arrested. Bashir and Boota P. W's had seen him in the company ofthe deceased in the shop of Nazir Ahmed where the murder took place on the night between 12/13-1-1976 Besides Sultan Khan P. W. Had seen the petitioner running away from the spot of occurrence in a confused state of mind. Further, the petitioner produced one purse, which contained articles of the deceased. Ha also produced a wrist watch of the deceased. The petitioner also produced blood--stained Toka and blood-stained clothes. On this circumstantial evidence, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has cancelled the bail of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against this Order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is correct. Prima facie there is circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. The High Court has exercised the discretion properly. There is no ground for interference. The petition is dismissed.