1. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.---These two petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the common order of the learned Chief Justice of Baluchistan High Court, dated 16th May, 1990, whereby the bail granted to the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge, Sibi, was cancelled.
2. At the hearing of these petitions the learned AA.-G. Pointed out that in this case the sole eye- witness is one Yar Muhammad who has not been so far examined. According to him the trial of the petitioners' alongwith other co-accused under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. Is in progress and the said eye-witness can be examined on the next date of hearing. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the next hearing in the case has been fixed on 26th August, 19X). Learned A.A.-G. States that the date of hearing can be entedated and the said eye-witness Yar Muhammad can be examined. Under the circumstances he submits that it will be appropriate for the accused to apply for bail afresh before the trial Court after the recording of the evidence of the said eye- witness.
3. On our inquiry learned A.A.-G. Has undertaken that the hearing of the case can be antedated and the said witness examined within one month.
4. In view of this statement of the learned AA.-G. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press these petitions.
5. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed as not pressed. We, however, direct that the hearing of the trial be fixed within one month and the evidence of witness Yar Muhammad be recorded within that time. It will then be open to the petitioners to apply afresh for their release on bail before the trial Court, which will consider their application in the light of the evidence and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the orders previously passed by the High Court.