MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ vs The STATE

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This order will dispose of two Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 402 and 403 of 1978.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioner is -involved in a case registered as per F. I. R. No. 118 dated 9-7-1978 at Police Station F. I. A., Rawalpindi, under section 465/467/568/411/420, P. P. C. And sections 25/27-A of Emigration Act VII of 1922 and section 6 of the Passports Act XX of 1974. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3080-B of 1978 for bail in offence under section 472/109, P. P: C. Which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 11-8-1978. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner approached this Court vide Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 332 of 1978 in which he was released on bail on 2-9-1978.

3. Later on it transpired that the petitioner was involved in other offences also. He therefore filed another Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3486-B of 1978 in the High Court but without any success as it was rejected by another learned Single Judge of that Court on 1-10-1978 on the ground that the petitioner by filing an affidavit of a prosecution witness who bad disowned his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. Had tried to tamper with prosecution case and was therefore not entitled to be granted the privilege of bail. The petitioner has filed Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 403 of 1978 against this order.

4. A second attempt on the subject was again made, by the petitioner by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3753-B of 1978 which too was dismissed by the same learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 3-10-1978 for the reason above given. Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 402 of 1978 has been filed against the last-mentioned order in this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue that his client was innocent; that the case against him was that he was a private secretary of his maternal uncle Muhammad Ashraf (absconder accused) from whose house different incriminating articles relevant for the commission of the offence of forging foreign visas, stamps etc. Were recovered at the instance of the petitioner. It was submitted that this was a fake recovery which had been planted on the petitioner and that even otherwise this material was not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the various crimes alleged against him. We notice that the ground on which the bail was refused to the petitioner was that he had tried to sworn a prosecution witness from whom he obtained an affidavit stating that he had made no statement to the police though his such statement duly existed in the investigation file etc. Learned counsel wanted to show that the affidavit given by the aforesaid witness was quite correct and that the said witness had himself volunteered that statement for the petitioner and that he had not suborned him at all. We do not want to express any view on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice any party and on our part we think that the matter of bail was essentially within the discretion of the High Court and since the High Court in this respect did not act in any arbitrary manner and regulated its discretion with reference 1 to some material which came to its notice, it is not a fit case in which the order of the High Court should be taken exception to especially when the learned counsel was unable to point out violation of any fundamental principle of administration of justice in criminal cases warranting interference by this Court. The petitions have no merit and are dismissed.