ASHIQ AND Another RAMZAN vs THE STATE ABDUL HAQ AND ANOTHERs

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of the connected Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 46 and 62 of 1970, which are directed against the same order of the High Court (Lahore) made in a pending criminal appeal, whereby bail was allowed to Abdul Haq and Ashraf respondents in Petition No. 62 but it 'was refused to Ashiq and' Anwar petitioners in Petition No. 46 aforesaid.

2. The appeal filed by the petitioners and the respondents mentioned above, is in relation to their convictions and sentences nor their alleged participation in an occurrence in which two persons, namely, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Din were killed and grievous injuries were caused to P.

3. W. Ramzan with sharp: edged weapons and to P. W. Riaz with blunt weapons.

4. From the judgment of the trial Court it appears that the respondents Abdul Haq and Ashraf were not found guilty of the murder charges. However, they were convicted under section 326, P. P. C. For causing grievous injuries to Muhammad Ramzan P. W. And each sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment on that count and Ashiq and Anwar petitioners in Petition No. 46 of 1970 according to the trial Judge, had caused grievous injuries to Ramzan P. W, as well as to Muhammad Sharif deceased and were sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each on that score.

5. No reasons are disclosed in the High Court's order for grant of bail to respondents Abdul Haq and Ashraf and the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Petition No. 62 of 1967, has severely attacked the order on that basis. The absence of any reason in the High Court's order certainly leads one to guess as to what had persuaded the High Court for the judicial exercise of its discretion in the matter for allowing bail to one set of convicts and refusing it to the other set in the same case. However, it seems to us that the distinction was made by the learned Judges of the High Court on the basis of the responsibility for the murder of the deceased persons. The respondents Abdul Haq and Ashraf were cleared by the trial Judge of that charge, whereas the petitioners Ashiq and Anwar were found by the trial Judge to have caused injuries to Muhammad Sharif deceased also, apart from causing injuries to P. W. Ramzan.

6. We refrain from interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Judges of the High Court in the matter, but not without making a remark that it would have been proper and desirable if the learned Judges had given the reasons for granting bail to the respondents who had been convicted under section 326, P.P.C. And sentenced to a long term of imprisonment of ten years' R. I.

7. The learned counsel appearing in Petition No. 46 of 1947, did not seriously press for the bail of Ashiq petitioner but he argued very forcefully for the bail of Anwar, on the basis of the remark contained in the High Court's order that the learned Judges did not feel inclined to release him on bail at that stage, although according to the observations of the learned trial Judge, Anwar had probably not caused any injury to the deceased persons. This remark apparently wipes away the distinction made between his case and that of the respondents Abdul Haq and Ashraf in the matter of bail, with this difference perhaps that the trial Judge was in doubt about the guilt of Anwar in this behalf but had no doubt about the innocence of Ashraf and Haq.

8. As no extraordinary circumstance has been made out in the matter to justify our interference at this stage with the discretion exercised by the High Court, we would dismiss these petitions.

9. However, we feel that the remark made by the High Court regarding Muhammad Anwar reproduced above, would justify the renewal of an application by him for his bail if his appeal is not decided by the High Court within the next six months.