1. ' The respondent No, 2 Liaquat Ali is facing trial under section 302/307, P.P.C. Before the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, (East). The incident took place on 30-9-1987 in which deceased Manzoor Ali received injuries so also complainant Manzoor--during night. The respondent No,2 moved an application for bail before the learned trial Judge and the same was allowed vide order, dated 14th May, 1988. The present application is directed against the said order.
2. ' I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned counsel for the private respondent, and the learned counsel appearing for the State.
3. ' It was contended by Mr. Dewan Bashir Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/complainant that the respondent No,2 was caught red handed alongwith blood-stained clothes, and that he had produced a blood stained knife as well. That the complainant was an eye- witness of the incident, and the F.I.R. Was lodged promptly and, therefore, the learned trial Judge had erred in granting bail to the respondent No,2.
4. ' Mr. Sardar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No,2 has contended that 8 witnesses have been examined, and only two witnesses remain to be examined, and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to consider this application on merits at this stage.
5. ' Mr. Salman Ansari learned counsel appearing for the State, has supported Mr. Sardar Khan, Advocate, and he was also of the same view that any expression of opinion at this stage was bound to prejudice the case of one or the other party.
6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The fact that 8 witnesses have been examined was not controverted. By Mr. Dewan Bashir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/complainant Only two witnesses remain to be examined, and, therefore, if the above application is decided on merits one way or the other, it was bound to affect one or the other party.
7. ' In the case of Abdul Qadeer v. Muhammad and another 1976 P Cr. L J 1203, Mr. Nasim Hassan Shah, J. (as his Lordship then was) was pleased to observe that: "I understand that the trial has already started and a part of evidence has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the statements of the eye-witnesses are to be recorded tomorrow. If the bail is cancelled at this stage, this might affect the trial one way or the other. In the circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am not inclined to set aside my previous order, dated 24-2-1976, granting bail to the respondents."
8. ' In the case of the State v. Rashid Ahmad and another 1988 SCMR 1129, while considering the question of cancellation of bail, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe that:- "We are, however, not inclined to cancel the bail of the respondent, for the case is of early 1985 and there is a possibility that the respondent either has stood his trial or it is commence soon. Thus, we maintain the order of grant of bail to the respondent on the ground other than the one given by the High Court."
9. ' In the above case in spite of the fact that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the view that the bail was granted to the respondent on wrong ground still the bail was not cancelled due to the fact that the accused had either stood his trial or that his trial was to commence soon.
10. In view of the above factual as well as legal position, I am of the considered view that it will not be appropriate to consider the merits of the case in one way or the other as it was bound to prejudice the case of one or other party, therefore, the above application is hereby dismissed.
11. ' However, I direct the learned trial Judge to complete this case within three months and report compliance.