' This is a petition by Abdul Ghaffar for the cancellation of bail of Muhammad Saleem and five others. While admitting this petition, my learned brother Saleem Mazhar, J. On 25th June 1913, issued notice to Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Younas respondents only. The petition against the remaining respondents was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the nature of the injuries caused by the accused were serious, and the learned Sessions Judge also did not consider that the offence under section 307, P. P. C. Is punishable with transportation for life and unless he had come to a conclusion that no offence appeared to have been committed which would be punishable with transportation for life, bail should not have been allowed to the respondents. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge allowed bail before arrest to the respondents, but did not keep in mind the principles on which anticipatory bail is allowed. The tact that the investigation was complete and the challan had been put in Court are no grounds for allowing before arrest.
3. There is substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. But 1 find that the respondents are on bail since 9th June 1973. The challan was submitted by the police in Court before 9th June 1913 and so far not a single witness has been examined in the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that be received a report in this case dated 9th July, 1973, revealing that there was no Section 30 Magistrate at Nan kana Sahib. Both the counsel do not know if a Section 3U Magistrate has been posted there or not. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, maintained that no single witness has been examined so far, which fact the State Counsel I unable to controvert. On the ground of delay in the trial alone, the A respondents are entitled to bail. I, therefore, dismiss this petition with direction that the trial be expedited.