' On 5-10-1973 one Ali Bakhsh Junejo came to be shot dead in the Bazar of Sangher at about 9-45 a. m. The First Information Report was lodged by Muhammad Ibrahim, the driver of the deceased, Ali Bukhsh Junejo, after a short while. However, nobody was named as accused in the First Information Report. Once the investigation was taken up by the Police, it appears that an application for the grant of anticipatory bail was filed in this Court by three persons, Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Ismail and Kazi Faiz Muhammad. The application was granted, because all that was stated by the learned Assistant Advocate-General was that the said applicants was not wanted, as there was no evidence against them till that time. However, it was observed by Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, J., (as he then was) that if the investigation revealed some evidence, this Court might be moved for the cancellation of bail. The order is dated 20-11-1973. Then, some of the accused, who had been arrested, moved an application for bail before this Court, and bail was granted by me to Rahimdad, Muhammad Hassan and Mehran, at present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that the main accused was Kazi Faiz Muhammad, and, if the learned Assistant Advocate-General did not oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to him, it would be unfair in the extreme, if bail was rejected to the alleged conspirators. I had also, however, mentioned that it would be open to the prosecution to move an application for the cancellation of bail if the bail granted to Kazi Faiz Muhammad was cancelled. In Ibis very context, it might be mentioned that it was stated by the learned Assistant Advocate-General during the hearing of the bail application that such an application had been moved, but was not being heard, as Kazi Faiz Muhammad was not being served. Then, bail was granted to accused Bachoo, at present respondent No, 4 by my learned brother Z. A. Channa, J,, on the grounds which had been considered by me, and he also mentioned that, if the circumstances so warranted, an application for the cancellation of the bail could be filed later on.
2. As mentioned earlier, the State had filed an application for the cancellation of the bail of Kazi Faiz Muhammad and Ismail in this Court, and, as they were not being served, a notice was issued to the surety for the production of these persons. However, the surety had submitted in writing that he was unable to produce them, and an apprehension was also expressed that they might have been killed by the police people. Muhammad Haleem, J., (as then he was) did not find the explanation satisfactory, and he therefore, ordered the forfeiture of the bonds furnished by the surety. He also cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to them, and ordered that non-bailable warrants be issued for their arrest without any limit of time, as they were stated to have absconded. A petition for special leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against this order, which was converted by their Lordships into an appeal. Ultimately, the order passed by the High Court was set aside, and Kazi Faiz Muhammad and Muhammad Ismail, the appellants, were directed to appear before the High Court on 9-1-1976, so that their case for the grant, or cancellation of bail might he considered by the High Court on merit. The said Kazi Faiz Muhammad, Muhammad Ismail, however, did not choose to appear before this Court, as directed by the Supreme Court. In their absence, Muhammad Haleem, J., (as then he was) refrained from proceeding with the hearing of the application on merit. There was, however, an order that the non-bailable warrant would be executed as ordered by the Supreme Court.
3. This application for the cancellation of bail was moved by Muhammad Ibrahim, the complainant in the case, on 4-8-1975, and was adjourned, time and again. It was partly heard, and then there was a break, because I was on circuit at Quetta. It was also pointed out that the trial might be completed as a beginning had been made. However, the position is that nothing has been done for about five months by now, and only one witness, that is, Khattan, the approver, has been examined at the trial.
4. Mr. Aftab Ahmad Akhund, learned counsel for the applicant, has stated that the evidence collected by the prosecution against the various accused, including the present respondents, so far, is a judicial confession made by Khattan, a co-accused, who has been made an approver.
There was also another judicial confession by co-accused Muhammad Saleh. Both these judicial confessions implicate the makers as well as the other co-accused. Ile has also pointed out that there is also the evidence of P. W. Kamal, a jeep driver, who is alleged to have brought the present respondents along with Khattan and Muhammad Saleh to the `vardat' where the fatal shot had been fired. He had duly picked up the present respondents in an identification test held before a Magistrate. Further, according to him, there is the evidence of Ghulam Jillani, the cleaner of the said jeep. There is also the evidence of a tracker against Bachoo, who happens to be the respondent No, 4 here. He has also pointed out that there is the evidence of the production of a revolver by co- accused Khattan. Be that as it may, the production of the revolver will not be very material for the consideration of the present application. Looking to all these facts, the contention of Mr. Aftab Ahmad Akhund, that there was enough material to connect the respondents 1 to 4 with the commission of the crime, prima facie, is not without substance. Mr. Muhammad Sulleman Memon, Additional Advocate-General, also supported him in that regard. It was, however, contended by Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, learned counsel for the respondents, that there was only one shot fired, and the two judicial confessions clearly make out that the fatal shot had been fired by Muhammad Saleh, and therefore nothing has been done by the present applicants which should warrant the cancellation of bail. In that context, he referred to the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v.
The State (1), {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1971 P Cr. L J 106 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' which is a case from Lahore. Here, the allegation made by the prosecution is that there was a deeply laid conspiracy and all the respondents had turned up on the wardat' to see that it was successfully achieved. In view of the fact that the prosecution has prima facie succeeded in collecting evidence connecting the applicants with crime, and, as the bail had not been granted to the respondents at any stage on merit, I do not find any occasion to continue them on bail. The bail is cancelled. They are present in Court and will surrender to their bail bonds to await their trial.