1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-3-1978, and arises in the following circumstances The appellant herein alongwith five co-accused is said to have waylaid Abbas A.I deceased at a place outside the village abadi situated in the jurisdiction of Mamunkanjan Police Station, District Faisalabad, and caused him multiple injuries (41 in number) with lathis as a result of which he lost his life.
2. The F. I. R. Of the occurrence was registered at Mamunkanjan Police Station wherein the appellant and his five co-accused were named and consequently all of them were arrested. During the course of the investiga--petition by the S. H. O., Mamunkanjan Police Station, the appellant herein raised the plea of alibi saying that on the day of occurrence he was actually in Multan, residing with one Muhammad A.I, Executive Engineer, in connection with the operation of his left eye. However, he did not examine Muhammad A.I before the S. H. O. It seems that during the course of the said investigation, the appellant herein made an application to the authorities with a view to seeking the transfer of the investigation to another Officer. His said application was accordingly granted and the investigation was transferred to the Inspector of the area for re-verification. The appellant again raised before the said Officer the plea of alibi but this time he said that he had stayed with one Muhammad Ashraf at Multan and not Muhammad A.I the Executive Engineer. In support of his said plea, however, he did not examine Muhammad Ashraf but instead got the statement of one Chaudhry Altaf, Advocate, recorded who seems to have supported him. In regard to his plea that at the relevant time he was in Multan in connection with the operation of his left eye, he did not examine anyone from the Nishtar Medical College Hospital, where he said he had been treated, and instead examined a doctor from Mamunkanjan. The statement of the said doctor, however, was that in his opinion, the appellant seems likely to have been operated upon on his left eye. Upon all the said material, therefore, the Inspector of the area opined that the appellant seems to be innocent but even so be challaned him to Court in view of the case of the prosecution.
3. Leave was granted to the appellant, vide order of the Court, dated June 28, 1978 to consider whether in view of the facts and circumstances of this Court the High Court was justified to refuse him bail in view of the plea of alibi taken by him before the Investigating Officer. After having heard Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, we feel that the order of the High Court is unexceptionable. From the narration of the facts hereinbefore, it would be clear that the appellant herein has been taking inconsistent stands from time to time. Before the S. H. O. Of Mamunkanjan Police Station he had indeed taken the plea of alibi, but what he had said was that on the day of occurrence he was actually residing with one Muhammad A.I, Executive Engineer, Multan. However, when the case was transferred to the Inspector of the area for re-verification, he took up an altogether different stand saying that actually he had lived with one Muhammad Ashraf at Multan. But curiously enough instead of examining the said Muhammad Ashraf before the Investigating Officer he produced one Chaudhry Altaf, Advocate, to support him, as also that instead of examining' someone from the Nishtar Medical College Hospital, Multan, to the effect that he had indeed been treated in the said institution, he contented himself by producing a doctor from Mamunkanjan, whose statement is wholly inconclusive. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the refusal of bail to the appellant by the High Court was based on sound reasons and the same calls for no interference by this Court.
4. Furthermore the main reason for which leave was granted to the appellant in this case was to consider the question whether in view of the facts and circumstances of this case his case was not covered by section 497(2), Cr. P. C. So as to entitle him to bail. This ground is no more available for consideration because according to Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, the learned Assistant. Advocate-General, the final challan has already been submitted against the appellant before the trial Court.
5. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.