NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner. Ata Muhammad, by this petition seeks special leave to appeal from the order dated 11-2-1976 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Chart, Lahore, passed in Criminal Mica. No. 147-B of 1977 whereby his application under section 497(5) read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat to respondents 1 to 4 herein was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts necessary for the decision of this petition are that an. F. I. R. Was lodged by the present petitioner, Ata Muhammad, at 8 p. M., on 13-4-1975 at Police Station Kuthiala SherKhan, Tehsil Phalia. District Gujrat, alleging that on the day of occurrence, while he (the complainant) and other members of the complainant party were ailing at a distance of one mile from the place of occurrence, one Moonda came there and informed them that although his turn of water was up to 6 p. m. But Shera respondent had got the water cut earlier, On hearing this, all the members of the complainant party set off for the field of Ghulam Muhammad where Shera (respondent No. 1) was present along with Bakhsha (respondent No. 2). Inayat alias Natu (respondent No. 3) and Mansha (respondent No. 4) armed with guns and Riaz. Nawaz and Wali, empty handed. When the complainant party reached there all the above-named seven persons came out from a nearby dera and raised lalkara. Shera (respondent No. 1) and Bakhsha (respondent No. 2) fired at Sikandar, who fell down and died on the spot. Inayat alias Nata (respondent No. 3) and Mansha (respondent No. 4) fired at Shana, who fell down. Umra also suffered fire-arm injury in this incident and fell down. The motive alleged in the F. I. R. Was that some 15-20 days prior to the occurrence, Shana had purchased land from the heirs of one Mutalli which land was in possession of Shera (respondent No. 1) and the latter was desirous of buying that land.
3. All the seven accused were arrested but during the coarse of inves--tigation the Police found Nawaz (empty handed) and Mansha respondent No. 4 (armed with gun) as innocent and placed them in column No. 2 of the challan. Wall (co-accused) was granted bail on 19-5-1975 by the Session judge, Gujrat for the reason that he eras empty-handed and only a proverbial lalkara was attributed to him. Mansha respondent- No. 4 was released eon bail by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide his order dated 27-5-1975. Firstly, on the ground that Police investigation found him innocent and, secondly that it was not stated by the prosecution that the injuries suffered by the deceased or the injured persons were called by Mansha respondent. An application (bearing Criminal Misc.
No. 2160-B of 1975) for cancellation of their bail was filed by the complainant in the High Court but the same was dismissed by. Mr. Justice Abdul Jabbar Khan on 3-6-1075. A second application (bearing Criminal Misc. No. 3073 B of 1975) was also dismissed for non-prosecution by Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal of the Lahore High Court on 1-10-1975. Similarly Shera respondent No. 1 anal the two co- accused, namely Riaz and Nawaz, were admitted to bail by the same Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 16-7-1975 on the ground that Riaz and Nawaz were empty handed and only a lalkara was attributed is them, while Shera respon--dent No. 1 bad received numerous injuries during the incident out of which one was declared grievous. The complainant filed application (bearingCriminal Misc. No. 3015/B/75 for cancellation of their bail which was dismissed by the High Court on 19-8-1975. Subsequently the remaining tyro accused, namely Bakhsha respondent No..2 and Inayat alias Natu respondent No. 3 were also released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat side his order dated 30-9-1975 for the reason that it had yet to be seen as to which of the parties was the aggressor. In this connection it was noted that Bakhsha respondent bad suffered 9 injuries.
It was also noted that the application for cancellation of bail filed by the complainant against the others were rejected by the High Court, and, thus the case of the above two accused could not be differentiated from that of the other co-accused. Aggrieved by this order the complainant filed a revision petition under section 439, Cr. P. C. (bearing Criminal Revision No 837 of 1975); which was ultimately beard by Mr. Justice Abdul Jabbar Khan and dismissed on 18-11-1915. The complainant having failed in all his earlier efforts to secure cancellation of bail of the accused persons then filed an application under sec--tion 497(5) read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. (beating Criminal Misc. No. 147-B of 1976) for cancellation of bail of respondents 1 to 4 herein. The said application came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A. S. Salam, J. And was dismissed by him on 11-2-1976 on the grounds, inter vita, that the complainant party had gone to the spot from a distance of one mile that the members of the accused party even had buffered it juries, including a grievous injury suffered by Shera, and that it was yet to be determined which party was the aggressor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of this petition for special leave to appeal has submitted that in the F. I R. Which was lodged shortly alter the occurrence, respondents 1 to 4 (armed with guns were attributed specific parts in the occurrence wherein Sikandar was killed and fire-arm injuries were caused to the prosecution witnesses, namely Shane and Umra. He further submitted that the Police investigation revealed that there was sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds to believe that the present respondents as well as their co-accused were guilty of the offence of murder and murderous assault and as such the Sessions Judge, Gujrat while admitting there to bail and the High Court while maintaining; the bail did not exercise their discretion properly in enlarging them on bail. It was finally, submitted that the present respondents since their release on bail were abating the concession of bail by suborning too prosecution witnesses and were therefore no longer entitled to remain on bail.
5. We have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and observe that these have already been taken into account by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. As for the submission that the respondents are abusing the concession of bail by suborning the prosecution witnesses, this ground can with proper materials be urged before the learned trial Court. However, we do not think it a fit case for interference by this Court at this stage.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.