1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.--The petitioners seek special leave to appeal from the order dated 17-4- 1976 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by which bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled.
2. On 16-10-1975, a Police Party headed by Choudhary Sher Din, Sub-- Inspector, Q. I. A. Was returning after investigating a case of dacoity of Police Station, Jampur when information was conveyed to them that one Kaura, a proclaimed offender, who was in possession of an unlicensed firearm, was available in Basti Khawaja t3akhsh Bohar. Accordingly they raided that village at 4-30 p. m. And arrested Kaura along with unlicensed fire-arm. However, the police party was manhandled by the villagers. Allah Ditta belabourded Sher Din, Sub-Inspector and snatched his revolver. Muhammad Afzal, Head Constable also received injuries. Brickbats were hurled at the police party and in the scuffle that ensued, Kaura received injuries and was rescued. Muhammad Afzal Head Constabl9 managed to escape while the others were held by the villagers. He hastened to Police Station, Fazilpur where he lodged the First Information Report at 8 p. m. Which was recorded by petitioner No. 2 and a case was registered under sections 395, 394, 397, 353; 342, 332, 224 and 225 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Petitioner No. 2 thereafter conveyed the information to the Superintendent of Police, Dera Ghazi Khan who was camping at Rajanpur, through petitioner No. 1 who at that time was the Station House Officer of Police Station, Rajanpur. It was alleged that under the orders of the Superintendent of Police petitioner No. 2 along with the Police guard, went to the spot at 10 p. m.
3. And were able to sat those detained released from the custody of the villagers As many as 9 persons were arrested. At about 11-30 p. m. Petitioner No. 1 also arrived along with the police party and helped petitioner No. 2 in arresting 12 other persons including three women. There--after Syed Fida Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the Baluch Levy Force and Inspector, Police Station Jampur accompanied by a Police guard, also reached there. Those arre0ed were produced before the Deputy Superintendent of Police who were later ordered by the Superinten-- dent of Police to be taken to Police Station, Fazilpur for being produced before him the next morning. The women were released on bail and remand of the others was taken on the 18th October, 1975.
4. On the same day Kaura who bad in the meantime decamped from the Basti, filed an application before the Deputy Inspector-General, Multan in which he stated that he had married Mst. Chano after she bad obtained divorce from the Civil Court and that Kaura Lashari, with the as3istance of Dur Muhammad, Hazoora, Muhammad Khan, Nawaz Gopant and Sher Din, Sub-Inspector came to the village to forcibly take her away but he offered resistance and in the scuffle he and his mother were injured and a false case was registered against him. Similarly, on the same day two other persons, namely, Allah Dttta and Muhammad Haleem also filed a petition before the Deputy Inspec--tor-General, Multan Range in which they alleged that Muhammad Amin, Sher Din Sub- Inspector and the other six persons named by Kaura had attempted to take away Mst. Chano which was resisted in which incident they belaboured some persons and outraged the modesty of some women. It was also alleged that the Police Force from Dera Ghazi Khan and the Baluch Levy Force had ransacked the houses, outraged the modesty of some women and arrested some of the villagers and a false report of the incident was lodged by Muhammad Afzal at Police Station Fazilpur.
5. Consequent upon the filing of Petition No. 2718 of 1975 by Allah Yar in the Lahore High Court in which an allegation was made that the two petitioners and some other 150 persons had committed heinous offences on the night between 17th and 18th of October, 1975 in Basti Khawaja Bakhah Bohar but the Station House Officer had refused to register the case, a learned Single Judge by order dated 3-11-1975 directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Fazilpur to register the complaint and investigate the case. Such complaint was registered on 4-11-1975 and the Investigation was entrusted to the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Lahore. On 14-1-1976, Mr. Shahid Hussain, Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, appeared in Court and stated that as a result of his investigation two challans had been filed and the petition was accordingly disposed of.
6. Petitioner No. 1 moved the High Court for bail before arrest and he was allowed interim bail but later the application was dismissed on Z7-1-1976 and hp was arrested. Petitioner No. 2 was released on bail by the investigating officer. Petitioner No 1 Was again released on bail by the Magistrate.
7. Rajanpur by order dated 30-1-1976 ors the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed by him were bailable. Allah Yar thereupon moved the High Court for cancelling the bail of the tyro petitioners.
8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1 that the considerations in deciding the application for bail before arrest are different from those which are taken into consideration after a person has been taken into custody and, therefore, the dismissal of the earlier application by the High Court could not be a bar for granting bail to him. The Division Bench while observing that there was no quarrel with the proposition held that this plea was untenable for the Magistrate had granted bail on the ground that the offences were bailable, but the facts which emerged during the hearing of the earlier bail application unmistakably showed the commis--sion of non- bailable offences and consequently that bail application was rejected for the reason that the offences alleged against petitioner No. 1 and others were 'serious and obviously non-bailable'.
9. It was next contended that in the report submitted by the Superintendent of police, Muzaffargarh petitioner No. 1 is shown to have committed offences under section 342/354/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code to which credence should be given in preference to the facts alleged in the F. I. R. Dated 4-11-197 5.
10. The Division Bench in the contest of this contention referred to the report of the Superintendent of Police which confirmed the truth of the accusation and also the statements of Allah Bakhsh and Wahid Bakhsh who, in the words of tile learned Judges, unmistakably supported the allegations referred to therein and held "that not only the offences which are stated therein are made out but on facts which are found, serious offences like sections 397, 398, 457 and 458, P. P. C. Etc. Are made out against the peti--tioners." In the result the Division Bench cancelled the bail of the petitioners.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the statements recorded in the course of the judicial enquiry there was no lion either of forcible removal of movable property or of a large allege number of persons having been taken to the police station or that the women p.m were made naked in public and, therefore, the Division Bench on an erroneous assumption, acted on the allegations made in the F. I. R. And the statements of the two witnesses.
12. There was material to told, as the High Court has done in reaching a tentative conclusion as to the involvement of the petitioners in committing the acts which by no means could be said to amount to bailable offences. Viewed in this light, the discretion exercised by the Division Bench is unexcep-- tionable. As to what transpired in the course of the judicial enquiry, will be a matter for consideration by the trial Court while assessing the credibility of the witnesses but for the present it cannot outweigh the considerations upon which the bail of the petitioners was cancelled. For the same reasons, even if no word is mentioned as against the petitioners in the application of Kaura and the joint application of Allah Ditta and Muhammad Haleem, it will be for the trial Court to judge the credibility of the witnesses in the light of this omission, but it will have no bearing on the discretion exercised` by the Division Bench in cancelling the bail of the petitioners.
13. For these reasons the petition has no substance and is dismissed.