The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions which he made before this Court on 12-7-1974 and noticed in the order of the said date. In reply, the learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to Muhammad Shafiq v: Muhammad Hanif (1970 SCMR 143). I have perused the said judgment. In that judgment reference is made to the case of Ghulam Farid and another v. The State (1969 SCMR 80) and Ahmad Bakhsh v. The Stale (1969 SCMR 266) in which the view of the High Court that commitment is, by itself, sufficient to show that a prima facie case exists, was approved. It was also observed that after the accused had been committed for trial, it was not for the High Court to evaluate the evidence. It had, merely to consider whether upon the material on the record, such grounds for belief had been made out or not, and the conclusion was expressed that where a prima facie case, upon the taking of evidence, is found to exist, that is also ordinarily sufficient for holding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person charged with the offence is guilty.
2. Learned counsel for the State states that at least one witness, namely Riaz Ahmad P. W. 9 had clearly deposed that the petitioner had held the deceased in a japhha, facilitating the task of the assailants to do away with his life.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has argued that Riaz Ahmad's evidence is the only piece of evidence against the petitioner in the whole of the commitment proceedings, whereas two other eye-witnesses have not supported the statement of Riaz Ahmad P. W., and that certain witnesses who were examined under section 161, Cr. P. C. And were cited as defence witnesses had clearly exhonerated the petitioner. He has also relied upon the subsequent judgment in Nisar Ahmad v. The State (1971 SCMR 174), in which it was held that the accused could pray for his bail even after his commitment, if he could show that his commitment was not based on reasonable grounds.
4. I consider that the latter judgment of the Supreme Court is more pertinent in the facts and circumstances of this case This case does require further inquiry within the meaning of section 497 of the Cr. P. C. I would, therefore, enlarge the petitioner on bail as prayed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Lahore. Needless to mention that in case the petitioner abuses the privilege of bail, it will be open to the State to move for the cancellation of his bail, if he has indeed abused the privilege of bail.