' Hafiz Abdul Malik petitioner alongwith others involved in case F.I.R. No,181 of 1996, dated 18-8-1996, under sections 302/324/ 201/109/149 read with section 148, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Mitro, Tehsil and District Vehari at the instance of one Abdul Ghafoor.
2. Precisely, accusations brought against the petitioner are that he hatched out a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof his co-accused constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly while armed with fire-arms on 18-6-1996 in the area of Basti Malikpur, Mauza Lalipur and then resorted to firing in quick succession over an assembly of persons, who were attending the Majlis and in consequence of said firing a large number of persons were killed and sustained felonious injuries.
3. Earlier, the petitioner was declined this relief by the learned Judge, Special Court No,II, constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Multan by virtue of his order, dated 8-3-2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State Counsel have been heard at length. We find that startling allegations of hatching out a conspiracy are there against the petitioner, which are supported by the statements of two witnesses. Their-testimony remains unrebutted as yet. The petitioner appears to be a great schemer and conspiracy hatched out by him was carried to. Its logical end, which speaks of his fullest participation in the commission of crime in question. The petitioner's conduct deserves serious criticism owing to tie fact that he failed to engage a counsel to conduct trial of the case, and a counsel at the State expense had to be appointed. He also failed to attend to his duties regularly. The co-accused of the petitioner also behaved in the same manner, so it was solely for the reason that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner and his co-accused did not appear and, as such, delay in the conclusion of the trial occurred. The matter did not rest here. Shafiq-urRehman, and Muhammad Ishaq, co-accused of the petitioner, were transferred to Gujranwala and Sargodha Jails for the trial of some others cases, in which they stood involved and for the reasons the Court had to wait for their return from those places. Poor eye-sight of the petitioner will not entitle him to the grant of bail.
5. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition being devoid of force.