HAQ NAWAZ Versus STATE

ORDER

In support of this bail application it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the eye‑witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case inasmuch as they have made statements under section 164 Cr.P.C., denying to have seen the occurrence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State urged that the statements of the eye‑witnesses made during the investigation are to the contrary and in their statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. the witnesses fully support the prosecution version.

2. The challan in this case was submitted as far as on 28‑5‑1986. In the interest of justice I will direct the learned counsel for the petitioner to move an application under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Jhang, who is seized of the case. The learned Sessions Judge shall consider that application and shall dispose of the same within three weeks of the institution of the said application.

3. With these observations this petition stands disposed of.

S.A.4‑6/L Petition disposed of.