Haji Mian ABDUL RAFIQUE vs RIAZ-UD-DIN and another

ORDER

MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the application for the grant of bail of respondent No,1 was accepted and he was granted bail.

2. According to the prosecution story the deceased who is the wife of the accused-respondent was murdered in the house of the accused and the report was lodged by her brother in the police station. During the investigation, statements of some witnesses were recorded who have stated in their statement that they have seen blood on the hands and cloths of the respondent No,1 and the statement of Arshad Mehmood was also recorded with regard to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-respondent before him. The learned High Court attending to all the circumstances of the case with regard to the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses i.e, by seven days and 8 days respectively had arrived at the conclusion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and the case is of further inquiry.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant as well as for the accused- respondent and the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of sufficient circumstantial evidence, the order of the High Court is not sustainable in law while on the other hand learned counsel for the accused has not dilated upon the merits of the case but has submitted that the trial has already commenced and almost all the witnesses i.e, about 10 have already been examined and only Investigating Officer and Muhammad Arshad before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession has been made is to be recorded and the latter seems to be reluctant to appear before the Court as despite of numerous adjournment she has not appeared till date. The learned counsel for the State has supported the order of the High Court and has stated that at this stage the cancellation of bail would not be proper.

4. In order to maintain the order of the High Court, the only ground in this case that about all witnesses have been examined except one or two would be sufficient, as at this stage the interference in the order of the High Court is not required and moreso when the cancellation of bail has been sought on merits of the case and there is no allegation that accused has misused concession of bail granted to him.

5. Keeping in view the above circumstances, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that since the application has been decided by the High Court mainly on merits such-like observations at the bail stage are tentative in nature,the same shall not influence/affect the merits of the case at the time of its conclusion.