1. ' In continuation of my order dated the 6th of July, 1977, the counsel for the parties are present and they have been heard. The report of the Medical Board consisting of Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, D. G. Khan and Medical Officer, District Jail, D. G. Khan, dated the 7th of August, 1977, is on the file and it is stated therein in respect of Karim Bakhsh respondent that clinically he was about 60/70 years old and that his general condition was poor. It may be noted that Karim Bakhsh respondent was allowed bail by the Sessions Court on medical grounds. In respect of Faiz- respondent it is submitted by learned counsel that the fatal injuries had been attributed to him. But the Sessions Judge allowed bail to Faiz respondent for the reason that it required further inquiry as to whether or not sota or some other sharp-edged weapon had been used by Faiz respondent in the commission of crime. In the F. I. R. Only sota blows have been attributed to Faiz respondent. In the supplementary statement the complainant in this case had stated that sota used by Faiz respondent as weapon for commission of crime had a pin attached to it. Thereafter, it appears that the pin was described as the blade of kassi. Since sharp-edged weapon injuries had been found on the person of the deceased, but only sota blows had been attributed to the accused party in the F. I. R., the Sessions Judge allowed bail to Faiz respondent on the ground that his case required further inquiry. The position as described by the Sessions Judge is correct and I see no reason to differ from him. There is only a general allegation in the petition for cancellation of bail that the respondents were misusing the concession of bail and were threatening the prosecution witnesses not to state anything against them or face dire consequences. But in support of this allegation (contained in subpara (g) of the petition no evidence has been placed on the record. There is only the affidavit of the petitioner who claims to be a P. W. In any case, the nature of the allegation is general. Learned counsel had also relied on Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1) and Haji Rahim Ullah v. The State and others (2). But in my view the authorities cited are not applicable to the fact of the present case so far as Karim Bakhsh respondent is concerned. The upshot is that no case is made out for cancellation of bail allowed to Karim Bakhsh and Faiz respondents. This petition is dismissed. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1977 SCM R 52 {{FOOT NOTE}}