NABAHOO Versus STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB AEI, J.‑ The petitioners who are charged under section 302 read with section 34, P. P. C. applied to the High Court for bail during the pendency of the inquiry under Chapter 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer was refused as one of the petitioners was alleged to have caused grievous injuries to the deceased and it could not be said at that stage that they were not vicariously liable under section 34, P. P. C. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the two eye‑witnesses were closely related ; that one of the recovery witness had not supported the prosecution case ; that the medical evidence has contradicted the prosecution version that Ramzan, petitioner, had caused an injury on the shoulder of the deceased ; and that there was no motive for the petitioners to kill the deceased. In the opinion of the learned Judge it was premature at that stage of the inquiry to express any opinion on the questions raised by the petitioners though there may be answer he to every one of them. The eye‑witnesses examined by the prosecution had fully implicated the petitioners and it was out of place to subject their testimony to criticism at the stage of considering the question of bail. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

2. Mr. C. M. Latif Rawn has brought to our notice that since the petition for leave to appeal was tiled by the petitioners they have been committed to stand trial in the Court of Sessions Judge. Ordinarily the order of commitment satisfied the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr. P. C., to disallow bail to persons charged with an offence, punishable with death or transportation for life.

3. No special feature in the case is brought to our notice to exclude the application of this rule.

4. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Leave refused.