' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13-9-2001 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1848-BC of 2000.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the night between14/15-7-1999, Mst. Najma Bibi respondent No,2 alongwith her husband Muhammad Iqbal (deceased), and 5 children, was sleeping in courtyard of her house. At about 12-00 p.m. (mid-night), she woke up, and in the light of electric bulb, saw 3 unknown persons, one of them was armed with rifle standing near her cot. She called her husband, who woke up, and the empty-handed person, started giving him slaps on his face. One of them gagged her mouth with his hand. In the meanwhile husband ofrespondent No,2 stood up from the cot, and all the three culprits rounded him. She started noise. The culprits armed with rifle, fired shot which hit on the chest of Muhammad Iqbal deceased, near his heart, who fell down. All the three culprits, through the staircase, went to the roof of the house, and then through a house adjacent to the house of respondent No,2, succeeded to escape. Muhammad Iqbal succumbed to the injuries. The case was got registered by Najma Bibi respondent No,2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, granted bail to petitioner Muhammad Arshad and his co- accused Muhammad Nawaz alias Nikko vide order dated 15-3-2000.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed criminal miscellaneous in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was allowed vide impugned order dated 13-9-2001 and the bail allowed by the trial Court to the accused was recalled. Hence, this petition by Muhammad Arshad accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the High Court did not consider the contentions of the petitioner and there is a scope of further inquiry about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail and his petition may be allowed.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the material available on record. The High Court had considered the entire material evidence, which, prima facie, shows that the petitioner was involved in the crime and his bail was rightly recalled by the High Court with sound and cogent reasons. It would be advantageous to reproduce here relevant paragraph of the impugned order, which reads as under:- "6. This brings me to the case of Muhammad Arshad accused-respondent. It is a well-known principle of law that the statement of an accomplice can be used as evidence against an accused person. The question whether such a statement does or does not have any corroboration could be decided only at the trial and the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 15-3-2000 contrary to the view taken by him in his earlier order dated 6-3-2000 could not be said to be a justifiable view at this stage of the proceedings. The evidentiary value of the statements of Arshaf and Altaf P.Ws. And the wrong mentioning of the parentage of Arshad accused is also in question which could be finally determined only at the trial when the witnesses had been examined and cross-examined. Suffice it to say that at the present state there was evidence available through persons who could not be shown to be interested witnesses whichevidence was sufficient to connect Arshad accused with the crime in question."
6. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. Furthermore, the High Court has rightly exercised its discretionary power, which does not require any interference by this Court, at this stage.
7. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.