1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Revision No. 286 of 1966 dated the 15th November 1966, whereby the revision petition was dismissed.
2. Ghulam Muhammad, a student of Second Year in Gojra College was stabbed on the 28th February 1966, at about 1-30 p. m. Just outside the College premises. He was removed to the Hospital where he made a dying declaration charging Malik Masood, also a student in the same College, for stabbing him with a knife. He also charged Obaidullah Khan for giving fist blow to him along with Malik Masood. Both Malik Masood and Obaidullah were arrested but released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur on the 29th March 1966. A revision petition against the said order was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, on the 15th November 1966.
3. Leave to appeal was granted in the case of Malik Masood to consider the question whether in dealing with the bail matter, the learned Single Judge of the High Court could enter upon the merits of the case before the evidence in the case is recorded and hand out a finding that it was a case of sudden fight and the only question to be determined was whether the said respondent had taken undue advantage.
4. "The possibility of a fight having taken place in connection with the elections hostilities cannot, therefore, be ruled out. From the arguments addressed to me at the Bar, it appears that earlier the matter was reported to the Principal, who fined all the parties and, therefore, it cannot be said as to who had the grievance against whom. The impression which I got from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was a case of mutual grievance on the part of both parties against one another. The circumstances of the case are such that the possibility of sudden fight could not be absolutely excluded and the only question which would require deter--mination would be as to whether Malik Masood took an undue advantage of his adversary or not. That, however, is a question which is more aptly a subject of a detailed evidence and for the moment it is enough to assume that it was a case of a sudden fight, in which each side had a grouse against the other."
5. The second ground on which the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the bail granted to Malik Masood was that the prosecution witnesses were deliberately avoiding to appear in Court and there was a delay in the disposal of the case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has not exercised the discretion vested in him in an arbitrary or improper manner. On the facts of the present case, it was quite proper to consider the plea of the respondent that it was a case of sudden fight. In such circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in not interfering with the bail granted to the respondent.
7. We, however, feel that it is unnecessary to discuss the point involved in this matter any further because it is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the case before the Committing Magistrate is at a closing stage. Practically the prosecution evidence has been concluded. We would, therefore, leave the matter to the Committing Magistrate. In case he commits the accused for trial under section 302, P. P. C. It will be open to him to consider the question whether he should be allowed to remain on bail or not. This he will do without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court or by this Court. There is no force in this appeal which is dismissed.