The respondents are accused of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. There are cross-cases between the parties, the opposite party being accused of an offence under section 307, P. P. C. The respondents were allowed bail by the High Court on the grounds that opposite party were using dilatory tactics to prolong the trial. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The petitioner then moved an application in the High Court for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the respondents were now delaying the disposal of the cross case against the petitioners. This application was dismissed on 20th April, 1980. In the second application for cancellation of bail it has been argued that the respondents told lies in the Court in as much as they stated that they had themselves appeared before the Police though the Police record shows that they were arrested by the Police. It has also been stated that Muhammad Hanif respondent No.1 styles himself as a pro lessor although he is not a professor.
2. The fact that respondent No. 1 styles himself as a professor is not relevant even though Mohammad Hanif who personally argued the case stated that he was a professor in the Islamia College but had been suspended on account of the present case. As regards the allegation that A the petitioners made a lie regarding the manner of his arrest, 1 feel that this too is not of any consequence. It cannot be said that the bail was granted initially to the respondents by the High Court solely for the reason that the petitioners themselves appeared before the Police.
3. For the above reasons, I find no force in this petition. It is rejected.