1. This application under section 497/498., Cr. P. C. Seeks the cancellation of bail of the respondents which was granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, after they were committed to the Court of Session to stand trial for offences under section,. 302/34, P. P. C. For having 'murdered Muhammad Nawaz in furtherance of their common intention.
2. The brief facts, of the case are that the three respondents were named in the F. I. R. But upon the investigation of the case, which was conducted by 3/4 officers, their participation in the crime was found doubtful and, therefore, they were placed in column 2 .Of the challan. Upon these facts they were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, on 22-2-1969. But the said order was challenged in. This Court by way of Revision Application (No. 157 of 1969) and the same was dismissed with the following observations :- "The Committing Magistrate should expeditiously examine the eye-witnesses in particular Muhammad Ismail and Nawab. Thereafter Ghulam Muhammad petitioner may make application for cancellation' of bail if so advised."
3. After the above to witnesses were examined by the--commit--ting Magistrate another attempt was made for the cancellation of the bail of the respondents and for this purpose: Cr. M. No. 7454 of 1970 was filed in this Court. This application was also dismissed by order' dated 4-11-1970 with these observations:- "But if -the accused do not seek the examination of any witnesses, who have been dropped by the prosecution, then naturally the trial Magistrate will have to consider whether on the evidence on record the respondents are to be committed to the Court of Session or not. Once that stage is reached, then the question will arise as to whether the respondents should be taken into custody or not and in this respect Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan points out that there is already an order of the learned Sessions Judge that if committed, they should be taken into custody. Without making any observations in this respect, the law is clear and the Magistrate will have to at accordingly."
4. The further observation, which was made in this order, was that in spite of the lapse of to years the commitment proceedings have not finalised and, therefore, the learned Magis--trate must finalise the said proceedings within six weeks under intimation to this Court. In compliance with this direction the learned Magistrate completed the inquiry and consequently committed the respondents to the Court of Session by his order dated 14-12-1970. In consequence of this order the respondents were taken in custody but they filed an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, which was granted on 18-1-1971. Being aggrieved of this order the petitioner has come up to this Court and seeks the cancellation of bail of the respondents.
5. I have heard Raja Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, the learned counsel for the State, and Ch. Aziz Ahmad Bajwa, the learned counsel for the respondents. The contention of Raja Muhammad Anwar is that once the respondents were committed to the Court of Session it would be presumed that they were prima facie guilty of the offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. And consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to allow them bail as if convicted, each of them would be liable to sentence of death or transportation for life. As against this the contention of Ch. Aziz Ahmed Bajwa is that the respondents were found to be innocent by some of the Investigating Officers and consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified to release them on bail on that ground. In support of their rival contentions the learned counsel for the parties referred to a number of judgments but in view of the consistent pronounce--ment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan it is not necessary to discuss them. The uniform view which the Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken is that once an accused person is committed to the Court of Session it would be deemed that he is prima facie guilty of the charge and consequently not entitled to bail in case under section 302, P. P. C. I have gone through the commitment order of the learned Magistrate, dated 14-12-1970 and seen that a number of witnesses have deposed against the respondents saying that each one of them had caused injuries to deceased Muhammad Nawaz with the various weapons with which they were armed. The impugned order further shows that the deceased suffered as many as 10 injuries out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by a firearm, No. 4 with a sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapons. The number and nature of these injuries prima facie show that they could have been caused by 3-4 persons who were variously armed. From this it is clear that the commitment order is based on proper evidence and con--sequently the respondents, all of whom are charged for an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C., are not entitled to remain on bail.
6. In view of this discussion this application is allowed and the bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, is hereby cancelled.