1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Mst. Rashid Begum addressed an application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pakistan in which she mentioned about the murder of her son Zaheer Ahmad.
2. She further stated that the accused had been bailed out and he wanted to abduct her daughter- in-law.
3. ' The application was presented in person in Court. It was dealt with by M.A. Zullah,J. On 30-4-1989, who ordered that it be registered as petition for special leave to appeal by relaxing the rules and be fixed on 3-5-1989 before any Bench.
4. ' The application was marked to the Registrar with an observation that the above-mentioned order was subject to approval by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The order passed by the learned Judge was approved by the Chief Justice.
5. ' On 3-5-1989, the petition came up for hearing before a Bench of three Judges of this Court. Notice was issued to the State and Abdur Rashid accused-respondent for a date at Lahore. The Bench ordered that the police file should be made available at the time of hearing of the petition.
6. ' On 21-6-1989, Mst. Rashid Begum was heard in person. State was represented by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional A dvocate-General. He supported the plea of Mst. Rashid Begum which was for cancellation of bail of Abdul Rashid respondent.
7. Leave was granted to consider as to "whether the order dated 3-12-1988 passed by the High Court releasing Abdur Rashid respondent on bail, in the facts and circumstances of this case, satisfies the well-established practice of the superior Courts regarding release on bail of accused involved in cases of murder".
8. ' The appeal came up for hearing today. The appellant is present in person. Assistant Advocate- General appeared on behalf of the State and straightway supported the plea of the appellant for cancellation of bail.
9. ' As the accused has been remanded to custody, he separately moved application (Cr. M.P. 142- R/89) for bail.
10. ' The appeal of Mst. Rashid Begum and the application for bail on behalf of Abdul Rashid respondent are being decided by this judgment.
11. ' We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent who supported the impugned order of the Lahore High Court.
12. ' According to the learned counsel, the discretion exercised by the High Court called upon for no interference.
13. Respondent Abdul Rashid is involved in a murder case. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence.
14. Prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence which consists of the statement of Muhammad Aslam made by him before the police on 7-9-1988; recovery of hatchet from the respondent; statements of Javed Akhtar and Muhammad Khan made by them on 5-6-1988 before the police where they stated that they saw the respondent and co-accused Riaz throwing something in the canal on the night of occurrence. The deceased was killed by strangulation.
15. ' In the statement of Muhammad Aslam, it is alleged that the respondent borrowed a Parna which he used for the murder of Zaheer Ahmad.
16. ' This being a case of circumstantial evidence, it should have been left for the trial Court to examine the evidentiary value of such evidence.
17. ' It is not a fit case where respondent was entitled to the concession of bail. The appeal is allowed.
18. Bail is cancelled.
19. ' The petition moved on behalf of the respondent being without merit is hereby dismissed.
20. ' The trial Court is ordered to expedite the trial.