1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The two respondents Kafayat A.I and Liaquat A.I, along with the absconding accused Iqbal are facing prosecution under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of Banaras, son of the appellant, Barkhurdar. By an order made on the 18th of November 1974, they were allowed bail by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court mainly on the ground that no direct evidence was available against them. The appellant thereupon moved an application for the cancellation of bail alleging that the respondents had threatened the appellant as well as witnesses Meharban Khan and Mohammad Mushtaq so as to prevent them from giving evidence at the trial.
2. This application was, however, dismissed by the same learned Judge of the High Court by his order dated the 17th of January 1975, observing that no reliance could be placed on such allegations, and further that the inquiry had not been completed even though the case had been registered against the respondents on the 17th of October 1972.
3. Leave to appeal was granted in this case on the 13th of November 197 to consider whether the High Court rightly declined to grant redress under section 497 (5) of the Cr. P. C. The operation of the High Court's order dated 18-11-74, and the bail accepted pursuant thereby, was also suspended. It was further directed that the inquiry Magistrate shall proceed to examine the remaining witnesses and complete the inquiry with all dispatch, but not later than six weeks from the date of the order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant and his Advocate-on-Record are both absent. We have, however, heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General in support of this appeal.
5. He submits that even though the taxi driver Mahboob Elahi had resiled from his previous statement, yet there was evidence of motive, as well as other evidence of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the two respondents, besides the evidence of recovery of certain articles be--longing to the deceased, and accordingly it was not a case where it could be said that there were no grounds for believing that the respondents were guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. It is further contended that the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in refusing to place reliance on the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses produced before him by the appellant in support of the allegation that the respondents were attempting to threaten and suborn the witnesses, specially when there was no counter affidavit in rebuttal of these allegations. It is submitted that the appellant had also made a report of these threats to the local police on 23-11-74, and it was duly entered in the daily diary, thus lending support to the contents of the affidavits sworn by the prosecution witnesses.
6. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted by Mr. Ataullah Sajjad that there being no direct evidence to connect the respondents with the crime rod even some of the witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove certain incriminating circumstances having resiled, the High Court was right in thinking that this was a case requiring further inquiry, as on the available material no prima facie case had been made out against the respondents.
7. He next submits that even Wahid Ahmed, who has deposed to having seen the deceased in the company of the respondents appeared before the Police three weeks after the incident, and accordingly no reliance could be placed on his testimony Learned counsel also contends that the allegation that the respondents had threatened the prosecution witnesses is on the face of it untenable, as they could not have done so only five days after their release on bail. He states that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had at one stage made a report on the application of the father of respondent Kafayat that the allegations of the appellant were incorrect. He contends that in these circumstances the High Court rightly refused to cancel the bail earlier granted to the respondents after repeated attempts in this behalf.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as Mr. Ataullah Sajjad, we are of the view that while it will not be appropriate for us to express any final opinion as to the quality of the prosecution evidence available in this case, yet it is clear that there is material to connect the respondents with the crime alleged against them, and it is for the trial Court to assess the veracity of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The allegations made by the appellant that the respondents had threatened the witnesses, after they had been enlarged on bail by the High Court, were duly supported by the necessary affidavits, which affidavits were not controverted by the respondents. The affidavits were also corroborated by the report which the appellant had made at the police station on 23-11-74.
9. We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court dated 18-11-74, and 17-1-1975, and cancel the bail previously allowed to the respondents.
10. Mr. Ataullah Sajjad expressed the apprehension that the trial of the respondents was likely to be delayed owing to the abolition of the commit--ment proceedings under the recent Law Reforms. In case there is inordi--nate delay in the finalisation of the trial, the respondents may apply to the appropriate Court for the grant of bail on that account.