MUHAMMADAZEEM Versus STATE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J --Both Criminal Petitions No.398 of 1987 and Criminal Petition No.399 of 1987 are directed against orders of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 1 December 1987. The petitioners namely Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Hasan, Haji Ghazi, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Shabbir alongwith Zafar lqbal were charged for an offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. and the Additional Sessions Judge Bahawalpur allowed bail to Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Hasan and Zafar Iqbal whereas he refused bail to Haji Ghazi, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Shabbir. Before the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Haji Ghazi, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Shabbir moved for bail whereas an application for cancellation of bail was moved against Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Hasan and Zafar Iqbal. The learned Single Judge vide his orders dated 1 December, 1987 cancelled the bail of Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Hasan but dismissed the application for cancellation of bail in respect of Zafar Iqbal. On the other hand bail was refused to Haji Ghazi, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Shabbir. Application for cancellation of bail against Zafar Iqbal was dismissed for the reason that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. But bail of Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Hasan was cancelled for the reason that the Sessions Court had allowed bail to them on wrong facts. According to the prosecution version Muhammad Azeera, Muhammad Hasan as well as Haji Ghazi, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Shabbir were armed with Sotis and had waylaid Muhammad Saeed. Thereafter they took him to the Dera of Zafar Iqbal and put him on the ground. Then Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Hasan caught hold of his arms and legs and the others except Zafar Iqbal caused as many as 22 injuries to him resulting in his death. Thus they sire alleged to have actively participated in the occurrence. The reason why the Sessions Court had allowed bail to Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Hasan was that the Court was wrongly informed that the trial was to commence in the near future whereas in fact the case was fixed for trial on the very same date when the bail was allowed to them.

2. We have gone through the orders of the learned Single Judge in these cases and in our considered view it is not a fit case for interference. The result is that both the petitions are dismissed.

3. S.Q./M-32915 Petitions dismissed.