' The relevant facts for the disposal of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1722-B, 1723-B and 1724-B of 1978, filed by Muhammad Sharif for the cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Amin Dar, Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Tufail, respectively, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by his orders dated 3-8-1977, as disclosed in the statement of Muhammad Sharif, dated 30-6-1977, are that on the night intervening 29th and 30th June 1977, at about 11-30 p.m. Muhammad Sharif, a fruit-seller, after closing his shop along with his two brothers, namely, Iqbal and Ashraf left for their house through Street No,
106. When the party reached the crossing of Street Nos. 108 and 106, near Iqbal Manzil, one person armed with a shot-gun was noticed by them coming from Sanda Road.
Simultaneously, four other armed persons appeared from Street No,
109. On seeing them the three brothers tried to take a turn towards Street No,
108. But before they could do so, the five armed persons came close to them and told them to raise their hands. It was an hold-up. One of the gangsters carried out the search of the three brothers and the other four pointed their weapons towards them. A sum of Rs, 11,000 from the chest pocket of shirt of Muhammad Sharif and Rs, 1,000 from Iqbal was removed by these hoodlums. Ashraf had nothing on his person.
' The criminals abused the three brothers and told them to run away. They then ran towards Sanda Road and had hardly gone a few paces when they were fired at by these persons. Sharif was hit on the right arm, right ankle and left buttock ; Iqbal on the left ankle and Ashraf escaped unhurt. The three brothers then ran towards Sanda Road.
' Sharif in his statement further said that he and his brothers could identify the assailants, because they had not muffled their faces. He also gave the descriptions of the five ruffians.
This statement of Muhammad Sharif was recorded by Haleem Sabir Sub-Inspector, Incharge Police Post, Krishan Nagar on 30-6 1977, on the basis of which a case under section 394, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station, Old Anarkali, Lahore.
2. Investigation commenced as usual. The complainant was n satisfied the way the Sub-Inspector was enquiring into the matter. He submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore, wherein he alleged that the investigation was not being conducted in an honest and proper manner and that he and his companions could identify their assailants. It was further alleged : ' On this application, the investigation was handed over to Old Anarkali Police. A supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 6-7-1977.
' It so appears that still the complainant was not satisfied with the investigation as a result of which he moved the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab. The case was entrusted to the Crimes Branch on 5-9-1977.
3. The three respondents in the first instance applied for bail before arrest to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, but that was rejected on 14-7-1977. Thereafter they separately applied for bail after arrest. On 30-7-1977, they were admitted to interim bail which was confirmed on 3-8-1977.
Hence these three petitions in which notice was issued to the respondents. All the three shall be disposed of by this order.
' One of the accused Ghias Muhammad applied for bail by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1383-B/78, but I dismissed his application on 30-4-1978.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to the respondents lacked support of cogent reasons which are necessary for a judicial pronouncement. It was submitted that the orders were arbitrary and capricious which showed lack of application of judicial mind.
' The learned Additional Sessions Judge has simply relied on the statement made by the police officer which was not sufficient for the grant of bail in a heinous offence like dacoity. It was argued that irrespective of what the police officer submitted the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have himself examined whether it was a fit case for the grant of bail or not.
' Learned counsel then accused Haleem Sabir, who initially investigated this case for nepotism and favouritism and also of corruption. It was submitted that he was responsible for spoiling the investigation from the start which later on compelled the complainant to ask for its transfer.
Learned counsel further submitted that the said police officer was proceeded departmentally for this and was reverted.
5. Learned counsel for the State did not support the petitioner and submitted that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not call for interference.
6. I heard the three Advocates of the respondents one by one at full length. They argued that the mere fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not write a detailed order would not 'mean that the discretion exercised by him was not in a judicial manner or that he was not conscious of the facts of this case.
' In addition to this, it was submitted that on merits the respondents have a good case for bail, because none of them had been named in the F. I. R. Nothing incriminating was recovered from them. They were not even identified. Learned counsel submitted that no reliance could be placed on the statement of Sharif which was recorded on 6-7-1977, because it was an afterthought.
' It was next contended that the State did not move for cancellation of bail and even before me the State was not supporting the complainant.
' Learned counsel further contended that the complainant has moved for cancellation of bail of the respondents after considerable delay which showed that he was not serious and had no genuine grievance. It was submitted that in the absence of any explanation for delay the only other factors which might have influenced the petitioner were some of my findings in the bail application of Ghias Muhammad accused.
' It was further submitted that it will not be in the interest of justice to withdraw the concession of bail and that no useful purpose would be served in sending the respondents to prison now.
' Last of all it was submitted that since the respondents had been admitted to bail, they never misused the concession.
7. The Additional Sessions Judge gave two reasons for admitting the respondents to bail ; first, that the police officer submitted that the respondents were no more required by the police and secondly, nothing was to be recovered for them. I do not think these were either good or sufficient grounds to confirm the interim bail.
' Propriety demanded that while taking into consideration the aforesaid two factors the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have also examined side by side the other relevant factors pertaining to the case. It was necessary for him to have taken into consideration, the allegations against the respondents ; nature of the offence, the sentence prescribed under the law' and the fact that both the complainant and his brother were injured and injuries had been caused by fire- arms. He should have also taken note of as to why and under what circumstances the investigation changed hands.
The mere concession made by a police officer in favour of an accused may be one of the factors which goes in his favour but that can never be the sole ground for bail nor does that exempt the Court from its duty to determine the question of bail in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the superior Courts. There is no short cut for the exercise of judicial discretion.
8. I have also taken into consideration the other submissions, like delay in filing these petitions and whether any useful purpose would be served in case the bail is cancelled but these points are only of secondary importance. The basic question to be determined is whether the impugned orders were passed in the exercise of judicial discretion, because if it was not so, then mere lapse of time and other circumstances would be of no consequence. Moreover, I am of the view that if an order lacks exercise of judicial discretion, then it cannot be allowed to stand because of time factor.
' I have also considered the allegation leveled against the investigating officer by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This was vehemently controverted by the learned Advocates of the respondents. However, Rana Ata Muhammad, Sub-Inspector of Crime Branch who had brought the file confirmed that the said officer was proceeded against departmentally and was punished by way of reversion. This was on account of his dishonest investigation in this case.
9. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that the impugned orders lack exercise of judicial discretion and the respondents as such were erroneously admitted to bail. I would, therefore, allow these petitions, set aside the orders of bail and direct that the three respondents shall be arrested forthwith and sent to prison.