1. ' WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The respondents Nos, I and 2 were challaned in the Court of Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Khairpur Nathan Shah, in August 1972, for committing the murders of Ghulam Qadir, Gul Hassan, Khuda Dad, Ghulam Hussain and Kewro, relations of the petitioner. The respondents made an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Dadu. The learned Court by order dated the 25th September 1973, granted bail to the respondents on the ground that the respondents were admitted in Liaquat Medical College Hospital at Hyderabad from 4th August 1973 to 10th and 11th August 1973, as indoor patients. The learned Sessions Judge relied on discharge slip issued from the hospital to the respondents. The petitioner challenged the order of bail before the learned Sessions Judge and prayed for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. This application was-rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the 30th November 1973. The matter was taken to the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi and a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the Criminal Application No, 89 of 1974 by order dated the 22nd April 1974. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. ' Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the plea of alibi set up by the respondents is false and should not have been made the basis of granting them bail. He submitted that a report was called from Civil Surgeon, Dadu whether one of the respondents had been admitted in the hospital at Dadu. In his report, the Civil Surgeon, Dadu informed the learned Judge that respondent Saleh was admitted in the said hospital on the 5th August 1973, and left the hospital on the 8th August 1973, without informing the hospital authorities. The learned counsel vehemently argued that this report is in conflict with the discharge slip issued to respondent Saleh from Liaquat Medical College Hospital. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
3. In our opinion, the question whether the plea of alibi set up by the respondents is true or not can only be gone into at the trial of the case. This is not the stage for deciding this question. In these circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in not interfering with the order granting the respondents bail. We do not consider this as fit case for interference. The petition is dismissed.