1. ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Criminal Petition No. 711-L of 2017 The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the petitioner/the State has informed that respondent No. 1 namely Muhammad Sarwar has been acquitted by the trial court upon conclusion of his trial. In view of this development this petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
2. Criminal Petition No. 750-L of 2017
2. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the petitioner/the State has informed that respondent No. 1 has already been convicted and sentenced by the trial court upon conclusion of his trial. In view of this development this petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
3. Criminal Petition No. 752-L of 2017 3.The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the petitioner/the State has informed that respondent No. 1 has been acquitted by the trial court upon conclusion of his trial. In view of this development this petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
4. Criminal Petitions Nos. 746-L, 747-L, 748-L, 749-L and 751-L of 2017 4.Respondents No. 1 in these petitions had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the High Court mainly because it was yet to be determined as to whether the offence allegedly committed by them attracted the provisions of section 2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or the provisions of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the petitioner/the State has submitted that the issue as to which of the above mentioned penal provisions was attracted to the cases in hand can be determined by the trial court at the time of framing of the charge or even later and, thus, it will be premature for this Court to attend to the said aspect of the cases at such a juncture. In view of this submission made by the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab we do not find it to be a fit stage for this Court to enter into the legal question mentioned above. Apart from that no allegation has been leveled against the private respondents regarding misuse or abuse of the concession of bail. The investigation of these cases has already been finalized and physical custody of the private respondents is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. In these peculiar circumstances of these cases no occasion has been found by us for interference in the matter. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused therein.