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 Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Misc. 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 1-4 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 Sheikhan, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat, alleging that on the day of occurrence, while he (the complainant) and other members of the complainant party were sitting 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 upto 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 Nathu (respondent No. 3) and Mansha (respondent No. 4) fired at Shana, who fell down. Umra also suffered firearm 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, Shera 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 course of investigation 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. Wali (co-accused) was granted bail on 19-5-1975 by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat for the reason that he was empty-handed and only a proverbial lalkara was attributed to him.
Mansha respondent No. 4 was. Released on 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 caused by Mansha respondent. An application (bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2-60 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 3-6-1975. 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 and 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 to them, while Shera respondent No. 1 had received numerous injuries during the incident out of which one was declared grievous. The complainant filed application (bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3015/B/75) for cancellation of their bail which was dismissed by the High Court on 19-8-1975.
Subsequently, the remaining two accused, namely Bakhsha respondent No. 2 and lnayat alias Natu respondent No. 3 were also released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide 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 had suffered 9 injuries. It was also noted that the applications 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 heard by Mr. Justice Abdul Jabbar Khan and dismissed on 18-11-1975. The complainant having failed in all his earlier efforts to secure cancellation of bail of the accused persons then filed an application under section 497(5) read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. (bearing 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 alia, that complainant party had gone to the spot from a distance of one mile, that the members of the accused party even had suffered injuries, including a grievous injury 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 after 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 Shana 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 them 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 abusing the concession of bail by suborning the 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.