ORDER AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.
The present two petitioners alongwith other accused were reported against vide F.I.R. No.189/94 dated 5.11.1994 for offences under Sections 302/34, P.P.C, with Police Station Samanabad, Lahore for the murder of Ahmad Javed son of the complainant.
2. According to F.I.R, both the petitioners were riding motorcycles while their co-accused Faisal Iqbal alias Goshi and Ijaz alias Jaja were sitting behind. Both the petitioners raised Lalkara and their co-accused fired at the victim as a result of which he died.
3. In support of the petition learned counsel argued the role attributed to the petitioners is that of proverbial Lalkara, they did not cause any injury to the deceased and that in spite of lapse of one year the challan has not been submitted.
It was next contended that in the presence of Faisal and Ijaz who were armed with mouzers and according to F.I.R.1 have also fired, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry. It was also becomes one been declared innocent by the local Police. Learned counsel in support of his submissions relied on 1994 S.C.M.R. 549, 1993 S.C.M.R. 2283, 1993 S.C.M.R. 1993, 1991 S.C.M.R.297, 1991 S.C.M.R. 1460, 1993 S.C.M.R. 1992 and 1994 S.C.M.R. 2164.
4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that earlier to Sajjad Ahmad by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was recalled by this Court and as such there is no fresh ground to release both the petitioners on bail when the role attributed to them is similar.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides at length and have gone through the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.l210/B/95. Learncd counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any fresh ground so as to warrant recall of the order dated 25.4.1995. The role ascribed to the petitioners is not only of proverbial Lalkara but was contributory to the commission of offence-The motorcycles used in the commission of offence have also been recovered. Merely on the basis of opinion of one investigating officer the petitioners do not become entitle to the concession of bail. The delay in submission of the challan is also due to filing of application for transfer of the investigation by the accused. Kccping in view the role of the petitioners, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petilioncrs. Thc result is that the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.