1. ' The prosecution case in brief is that Imtiaz Hussain Anjam complainant got prepared iron grills from Muhammad Saleem, etc. Accused for his Plaza about 2 months before this occurrence. There was some dispute regarding payment of price which had resulted in exchange of abuses about 15/16 days earlier. On 15-2-1988 at about 9 p.m. He alongwith his brother Shahbaz Ahmad came to Muslim Street to pay Rs,60,000 to Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal. He kept standing on the road with briefcase in his hand whereas his brother Shahbaz knocked the door of Dr. Pervaiz. Lqbal. In the meanwhile Zulfiqar and Muhammad Saleem accused armed with revolvers (both respondents), Shabbir armed with knife and Mahmood empty-handed came there. Zulfigar and Saleem fired from their weapons at Imtiaz Hussain complainant who got injuries on his left thigh, left bicep and abdomen.
2. He fell down whereafter Shabbir accused gave him knife blows. The occurrence was witnessed by Shahbaz and Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal. The accused left the spot alogwith the briefcase of complainant which had Rs,60,000 in it. The accused were arrested. They applied for bail which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 21-5-1988. It was observed in the impugned order that 'from the story of the F.I.R. It has been stated that from the day of occurrence 2 months back, a petty dispute arose between the accused/petitioners and the complainant over the difference of payment of iron grill, therefore, it is doubtful that over such a petty dispute the petitioners had intended to murder the complainant. The challan has been submitted before the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Lahore. Therefore, the offence does not fall at this stage under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.' This is a petition by Imtiaz Hussain seeking cancellation of bail of Muhammad Saleem and Zulfigar Ahmad.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record. It may here be stated that Zulfigar Ahmad accused- respondent No,2 is in lock up as after release on bail in this case, he fired at some person and was arrested in a case under section 307, P.P.C.
4. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Saleem and Zulfiqar Ahmad respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with lire-arms at the time of occurrence. They both fired and injured Imtiaz Hussain complainant, who received injuries on vital parts of his body. The accused had motive to launch an assault on the complainant. The bail was allowed to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge without cogent reasons. It appears that he had not taken into consideration recent judgments by Supreme Court and High Court. He allowed bail to the accused on flimsy grounds.
5. The accused were charged for offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. They could have been allowed bail only after a definite conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have committed a non-bailable offence. In my view the exercise of discretion by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in allowing bail to the accused-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was improper.
6. In view of the judgment in Arbab Ali v. Kamiso and others 1985 SCMR 195, I find that the case of Muhammad Saleem and Zulfiqar Ahmad respondents was not that of further enquiry. They were allowed bail by improper exercise of discretion. The hail order, dated 21-5-1988 is set aside. The to the accused-respondents is cancelled. This petition' is accordingly accepted. .