' This is an application by Ghulam Muhammad petitioner/complainant for concellation of to Mukhtar Ahmad, respondent No,1 by learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his order, dated 4- 4-1984 in a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Farooqabad vide F.I.R.
No,254/83, dated 3-11-1983.
2. The prosecution case was that the respondent and his real brother Niamat in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault on Akbar Ali and others and caused injuries to them. As far the respondent it has been alleged that he was armed with .12 bore gun and thereby caused injureis to Akbar Ali, Nazir Ahmad, Bhagan, Ramzan and Muhammad Sharif P.Ws.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to respondent No,1 without legal and factual justification inasmuch as the respondent was the principal accused who fired four shots from his gun and thereby caused as many as 37 fire-arm wounds to five persons and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that on 21-1-1984 Mian Ghulam Muhammad, the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura while rejecting the plea for bail of the petitioner stated:- "Akbar Ali's affidavit would not help Mukhtar Ahmad accused. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed before me F.I.Rs, of a few other criminal cases furnishing an indication that Mukhtar Ahmad is a vagabond and a dare devil. He has also cited 1975 PCr.LJ 628, in which case the Court had taken into account previous conduct and prior involvement of an accused in criminal activity in turning down his request for admittance to bail. Mukhtar Ahmad, from no angle and by no standard, deserves any indulgence or concession. He was responsible for infliction of 37 injuries on different parts of bodies of as many as five persons, including vital parts. The injuries could well take a toll of a few human lives. Enlarging Mukhtar Ahmad accused would tantamount to encouraging crime and giving protection to criminals. I would reject the bail application."
' On 4-4-1984 he allowed bail to same Mukhtar Ahmad mainly on the grounds of delay of about 5 months in the trial and affidavits of two witnesses. In para. No,3 of his order, the learned Sessions Judge stated:- "I have in mind particularly this aspect of the case that Mst.Bhagan and Nazir P.Ws. Are real sister and nephew (Bhanja) of the complainant, and even Ramzan P.W. Is stated to be a relative although not that close. They cannot be characterized as independent witnesses, although having been injured in the occurrence, their evidence would be of importance. Akhtar All alias Akbar All P.W. Is husband of sister of Mukhtar Ahmad accused and he is expected to side with him. But Sharif and another injured P.W is an independent witness being unrelated to the parties. He has been changing his position. He filed an affidavit exhonerating the accused and then disowned it by submitting another affidavit, subsequently; he has again appeared today to oppose the complainant's version. These developments would render the case, in so far as involvement of Mukhtar Ahmad accused is concerned, as one of further enquiry to some extent."
5. Strangely enough Mukhtar Ahmad respondent who according to the assessment of the learned Sessions Judge from no angle and by no standard deserved any indulgence or concession on 21-1- 1984 was declared entitle to the concession of bail 21/2 months thereafter by the same judge.
Further, while disposing the second application of Mukhtar Ahmad respondent, the learned Sessions Judge travelled beyond the scope of tentative assessment. The grounds given by him for releasing Mukhtar Ahmad accused on bail can hardly be termed as fresh or valid grounds. It is really unfortunate that despite his adverse observations in his order dated 21-1-1984, the learned Sessions Judge allowed bail to Mukhtar Ahmad respondent after 21/2 months although no valid ground in due course of event had arisen entitling him to the concession of bail. Without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for cancellation of by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 4-4-1984 to Mukhtar Ahmad respondent. Order accordingly. The respondent shall surrender before the trial Court immedaitely.
Bail cancelled.