' The present petition is for the cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No,1 Amir by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, vide his order dated 12-12-1989.
2. Amir, the respondent, and his co-accused are accused of offences under section 302/307/34 of the P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,275 dated 8-10-1989 registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang.
3. According to the said F.I.R., in brief, the complainant and his two sons were waylaid and attacked by respondent No,1 and his co-accused, as a result of which the son of the complainant, namely, Mathail died and his other son Manak was injured. Respondent No,1 Amir and his co-accused Ayub were allowed bail vide the impugned order on the ground, inter alia, that their names were placed in Column No,2 of the Challan.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended for the cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No,1 Amir, on the ground, that his name had been placed in Column No,2 of the Challan on the basis of the final note to that effect by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chiniot, who was never entrusted with the investigation and without touching the merits of the case.
5. Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent No,1 is represented by his counsel and the learned AA-G. Is present on behalf of the State.
6. The record of the case has been produced. On its perusal, it has been established that the name of respondent No,1 was placed in Column No,2 of the Challan, after a thorough investigation by the S.H.O. Concerned and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chiniot. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chiniot, is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Incharge of the Circle, in which the Police Station Lalian is situated. Therefore, the D.S.P., Chiniot, was fully competent to hold an enquiry and to record his findings and make recommendations as a result thereof in the present case. A perusal of the record has further established that the enquiry conducted by the S.H.O. Concerned and D.S.P., Chiniot, was in conformity with the law and rules applicable thereto. The learned counsel for the petitioner had to concede that the name of respondent No,1 Amir has been placed in Column No,2 of the Challan on the basis of the material brought on the record through the investigations conducted by the S.H.O. Concerned and D.S.P., Chiniot.
6. In view of what has been sated above, as respondent No,1 has been allowed bail, inter alia, on the basis of his name having been placed in Column No,2 of the Challan, therefore, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. The bail allowed to respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, is based on valid grounds and the same is in consonance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts for the grant of bail to the accused, placed in Column No,2 of the Challan.
7. Therefore, the present petition for the cancellation of bail being without any merits is hereby dismissed.