MUHAMMAD ATHAR KHAN Versus GULZAR AHMAD BOKHARI

ORDER

This is an application for the cancellation of bail of Abdul Haq respondent granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 30‑3‑1988 in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. pertaining to the murder of Mst. Sardaran.

2. The prosecution case is that Abdul Haq respondent accompanied by Sajjad alias Kala, Yaqub and Nasrr armed wish a dagger and Chhuris came to the house of Shaukat Ali complainant. Abdul Haq respondent raised a Lalkara that Mst. Sardaran should not be spared whereupon all of them pounced upon Mst. Sardaran and caused sharp‑edged weapons injuries to her. The motive for the occurrence was that about 2‑3/4 months prior to the occurrence a case of sodomy was registered against Faqir for committing sodomy with Javaid son of Shaukat Ali complainant. During investigation it transpired that Sajad accused mentioned above was the real culprit and due to the said grievance the respondent and his companions came to the house of the complainant and killed his wife Mst.Sardaran.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Abdul Haq respondent on the ground that in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. the respondent was not found involved in the occurrence but the S.P. after recording the statement of Mst. Robina P.W. had directed the submission of challan against him that independent persons had appeared before the Investigating Officer in support of the innocence of the respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the report of the Superintendent of Police who had found the respondent guilty and directed that he be also challaned alongwith others.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent states that as many as 38 persons had appeared in defence of the respondent arid had sworn affidavits in his favour. No recovery was effected from him and that the trial has been fixed w.e.f. 29‑11‑1988. It is next stated that the respondent has been involved because he is uncle of Sajjad alias Kala aforementioned.

6. Robina, on the basis of whose statement the S.P. had ordered the respondent to be challaned alongwith others is not mentioned as an eye‑witnesses in the F.I.R. A perusal of the, police file shows that the opinion of the local S.H.O. A was based on the statement of several persons submitting affidavits in support of the respondent's innocence. As already stated above the trial has been fixed w.e.f. 29‑11‑1988. In this view of the matter acid the reasons stated above t think that it is not the proper stage for the cancellation of the respondent's bail and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion rightly and no case made out for interference with the same. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

S.A./S‑361/L Bail cancellation refused.