1. GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1977 by which the bail application of the petitioner Babar Pervaz and one Qamaruzaman were dismissed.
2. The impugned order would show that Babar Pervaz and Qamaruzzaman (Who is not an applicant in this case) are facing trial on a charge under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In order to secure for themselves bail, however, they have been filing repeated applications in Lahore High Court which were rejected on the short ground that the merits of the case could not be gone into for the present. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, the learned counsel for Babar Pervez however, contended -that there was no evidence worth the name against the petitioner. In regard to the statement of approver against his client he contended that it was entirely manufactured. In this respect he referred to the statement of one Hujr Abdul Karim Inspector in which he had recorded the said finding. The learned counsel concedes, however, that there is nothing on the record of the case to support him in this behalf. Nor indeed had he urged the same ground in the High Court.
3. The learned counsel next argued that the judicial as well as Police record of the case has been lost and the case is being re-investigated de nova From this be argued that it would take considerable time before the trial of petitioner would commence and so he should be allowed bail. The defect, however, is that again there is nothing on the record of this case to show that the record of the case has been lost. Besides, this ground was not urged in the High Court which, alone was the, proper forum to, deal with such eventuality.
4. The learned counsel lastly argued that a parallel investigation in the case has been ordered by the authorities and this by itself would being case within the purview of section 497(2), Cr. P. C. To entitle him to grant bail. The difficulty again is that there is not ring on the record of this cue to show that this was the position. Not only this but this ground was al not taken in the High Court.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order was passed in the proper exercise of discretion in the High Court.
6. This, petition fails and is dismissed.