1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-8-1975 by which the respondent Muhammad Ali son of Barkat Ali has been granted bail.
2. It is alleged against the respondent that he, in conspiracy with Mst. Hajran, abducted Mukhtar Ali, husband of Hajran, and killed the latter. In this connection, F. I. R. No. 89 was recorded on 26-4-1974.
3. On this complaint the respondent was arrested. Later on he moved an application under section 497 read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in the High Court praying that he may be enlarged on bail pending the decision of the case against him.
4. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court considered hi application, and has come to the conclusion that there is no direct evidence against the respondent in the case, and the F. I. R. Was lodged after two months of the disappearance of Mukhtar Ali alleged to have been murdered. --He also did not prima facie attach much importance to the alleged extra judicial confession made by the respondent.
5. Sh. Abdul Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us that the view taken by the Lahore High Court is erroneous. His main grievance is that the learned Single Judge should not have observed that there was direct evidence against the respondent. He conceded that the occurrence took place in 1975 and the case is still pending against the respondent. The learned counsel was not in a position to inform us whether the committal proceedings are continuing or have ended.
6. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the High Court was perfectly justified in granting the bail to the respondent. We do not consider it a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the petition is