1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions bearing Nos. 132 and 182 of 1975, both of which are directed against an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 8th of February 1975, whereby he has granted bail before arrest in a murder case to the respondent Mohammad Saleem.
2. Petition No. 182 of 1975, filed by the State, is barred by fifty-one days and is dismissed on that account. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have decided to convert petition No. 132 of 1975 into an appeal, and we proceed to dispose it of accordingly.
3. The first information report in this case was made on the 9th of December 1975 at 6-30 a.m. By Hashmat Ali, alleging that his brother Mohammad Shafi had been murdered at 11 p.m. Daring the night by the respondent Mohammad Saleem and his two co-accused. Saifullah and Ziaullah, in furtherance of a conspiracy hatched by Mohammad Khan Bajwa and Mohammad Arshad Arain. It was stated that the first shot was fired by Saifullah, followed by shots by the respondent Mohammad Saleem and accused Ziaullah. Mohammad Shafi died at the spot.
4. The High Court has allowed bail before arrest mainly on the ground that there is enmity between the complainant party and the respondent, arising out of prolonged litigation, and, in that background, it was necessary that the Police should examine the defence plea of alibi before arresting the respondent. The learned Judge declined to express any opinion on the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent regarding the actual Incident, namely, the insufficiency of light for the purposes of identification, and the recovery of only one empty from the spot although more than one shot were alleged to have been fired.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, who is a brother of the deceased, it is submitted that the respondent had been directly named in the first informa--tion report and there were eye-witnesses to support his involvement in the murder; that the medical evidence also showed that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could not have been caused by one shot; and that since the grant of pre-arrest bail the respondent had been avoiding appearance before the Committing Magistrate, although an interim challan had been submitted as long ago as the 19th of March 1975.
6. We find that it is indeed correct that the respondent is named as one of the assailants in the first information report made by the petitioner Ch. Hashmat Ali, and a shot is attributed to him. The eye- witnesses named in the F. I. R. Are stated to have supported the first informant during the investigation of the case.
7. The previous litigation between the parties would appear to be a double --edged weapon, and it is not possible to hold, at this stage, that trio respondent has indeed been falsely implicated in this case on account of that litigation. The plea of alibi raised by the respondent is one which would ordinarily need examination by the relevant Courts in the first instance.
8. In the circumstances, it would appear that on the material available before the High Court it was a case where there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. Accordingly, it was not a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. We would, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and cancel the bail granted to the respondent. He may be arrested by the,' Investigating Officer in accordance with law.