' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-8-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3994-B/99, declining bail to the 'petitioners in a case registered against them under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979 vide F.I.R. No.54/99 dated 8-3-1999, P.S. Kot Nainan, District Narowal.
2. The prosecution case is that Mst. Nargis on 2-3-1999 at about 8/9 a.m. Came to the house of complainant, Liaquat Ali and took his daughter Mst. Shamim to Shakargarh with an excuse to make some shopping. Mst. Shamim Akhtar did not come back till evening and on inquiry, Mst. Nargis Bibi told that she has been left at Shakargarh. The P.Ws. Rafiq Ahmed and Munir Ahmed are alleged to have seen Mst. Shamim Akhtar in a car in the company of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were found innocent by investigation agencies. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the concession of bail, inasmuch as, it is a case of further inquiry. We are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Suffice it to say that the Court while considering the application for grant of bail has to decide the same justly, fairly and in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. The investigation reports may be relevant but not the sole criteria for grant of bail. Every case is to be decided on its own merits depending upon its facts and circumstances. In the case in hand, the learned Judge in Chambers while dismissing the bail application observed as under:-- "Mst. Shamim Akhtar in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Levelled the allegation of Zina-bil- Jabr committed with her by the petitioners. Munir Ahmed and Muhammad Rafique witnesses named in F.I.R. Have stated that they saw the petitioners taking away Shamim in a car towards Lahore. The medical report substantiates the statement of Shamim Akhtar that she was subjected to intercourse."
' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and persuing the material available on the record, we find that the discretion exercised by the High Court in declining bail to the petitioners does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
' No case for interference is made out with the well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court.
' Resultantly the petition is dismissed and leave declined.