1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The two petitioners, alongwith four others. Are facing prosecution for the murder of Khalid during the course of an incident alleged to have taken place at about 8 p.m. On the 10th of August, 1978, in Pakpattan Bazar, in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Saddar, Sahiwal.
2. According to the First Information Report made against the petitioners and others by Liaqat Ali, son of Muhammad Siddiq, the attack was launched by the two petitioners and their four companions, named Salim, Amin, Pervez and Jawaid on the complainant and his cousins Khalid and Ashraf. At that time Salim, Amin and Pervez were armed with knives whereas Jawaid, Shaukat and Liaquat were armed with revolvers. Pervez attacked the deceased with his knife, which the latter managed to snatch from Parvez but in the meantime petitioner Shaukat fired with his revolver at the deceased hitting him on the left arm. Accused Salim then made a knife attack on the complainant Liaquat Ali, injuring him on his chest. The petitioner Liaquat then fired with his revolver, hitting. The complainant on his head: When the complainant party tried to run away from the spot, accused Parvez and Salim pursued them, upon which the deceased caused knife injuries to Parvez and Salim. It appears that Parvez succumbed to these injuries.
3. The complainant Liaquat Ali and the injured Khalid deceased were taken to the hospital, and when the Doctor was still examining the deceased, who was alive at that time, accused persons Muhammad Salim, Muhammad Amin as well as Jawaid and the two petitioners armed with knives and revolvers respectively arrived at the hospital in two rickshaws. Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Amin entered the room where Khalid was under medical examination. Whereas accused Jawaid took position outside the door, and the two petitioners Shaukat and Liaquat stood at the main gate of the hospital. They shouted a challenge that they would not leave Khalid alive and would take revenge for the death of their brother Parvez. On hearing this challenge the doctor and the Dispenser ran out of the room and accused Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Salim inflicted a large number of knife injuries on Khalid, who died in the hospital room. Thereafter all the accused persons escaped from the hospital.
4. A counter F.I.R. Was lodged by accused Muhammad Amin regarding the murder of Parvez, a brother of the, petitioners, and also for causing injuries to Salim and Amin. We were informed at the Bar that the challan had not yet been submitted in both the cases.
5. By an order dated the 13th of December, 1978 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, allowed bail to petitioners Shaukat and Liaquat mainly on the ground that the allegation that these petitioners were standing near the gate of the hospital where Khalid was murdered was not clear from the contents of the First Information Report and had yet to be established during the trial.
6. On an application made by the complainant party a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, by his order dated the 14th of March, 1979 has cancelled the bail allowed to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has observed that the reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for allowing bail is flimsy, and it was premature for him to give a finding at this stage on a point which could only be determined after recording evidence. He has concluded by saying that on account of the part, alleged to have been played by them, these two accused persons were not entitled to the concession of bail, nor was their case covered by subsection (2) of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In seeking leave to appeal against this order, it is submitted by Khawaja Sultan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the gate of the hospital is situated at a distance of about 200 yards from the emergency room where deceased Khalid was under medical examination and therefore, it was impossible for the first informant to see the persons who may or may riot be standing outside the gate of the hospital. He submits that, in these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was right in saying that the matter needed further inquiry, and the learned Judge in the High Court was not justified in interfering with the discretion which had been properly exercised by the lower Court.
8. After examining the material available on the record, we are of the view that on the allegations made in the F. I. R. Regarding the manner in which the deceased Khalid was attacked and killed while under medical examination in the emergency room of the hospital after the initial attack on him in the Pakpattan Bazar, and the description of the identity of the assailants who played different roles in the incident, it was indeed, not a fit case for the grant of bail. The learned Judge in the High Court was clearly right in cancelling the bail granted by the Sessions Court.
9. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.