MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-Muhammad Hussain petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the learned Singh Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 29-5-1974 whereby Criminal Misc. No, 1477/B of 1974 filed by the petitioner for the cancellation of bail earlier allowed to respondent No, 1 in a case of murder and attempted murder, by the same learned Judge vide his order dated 6-5-1974, was dismissed.

2. Respondent No, 1 is one of the 11 accused against whom a case under sections 148, 302/307/149, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station, Bara Garh, District Sheikhupura on the 3rd of March, 1974 on the report of the present petitioner. It was alleged that the accused-persons armed with fire-arms had attacked the complainant party resulting in the death of one Muhammad Yunis nephew of the petitioner besides injuries to five others. Respondent No, 1 moved Criminal Misc. No, 1168/B of 1974 in the High Court for anticipatory bail. Interim bail was allowed by the learned Judge which was later confirmed. Instead of challenging that order before the Supreme Court, the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of bail which was listed before the same learned Judge and was dismissed.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the plea of alibi raised by the respondent in his petition was supported by affidavits sworn by as many as 20 Advocates of the District Court and the High Court purporting to show that on the day of occurrence, respondent was in Lahore from 4- 30 p.m. To 10 p.m. Fifty miles away from the scene of the crime which was allegedly committed at 5-30 p.m. Having considered two rulings of this Court obviously proceeding on distinguishable facts, Iqbal-ur-Rehman v. The State (1) in which the plea of alibi raised by the accused petitioner named in a case of murder was not considered good enough to justify his enlargement and Jannat Bibi v. Sher Muhammad (2) in which a similar plea was found to be relevant and a good ground for grant of bail in a case of murder, the learned Judge relying on some observations of the Supreme Court in the latter case took the view that the affidavits sworn by 20 Advocates in support of the respondent's plea of alibi constituted a good ground for bail.

4. In support of the petition for leave, learned counsel reiterated before us the grounds urged by.

Him before the High Court, namely, that respondent No, 1 was specifically named in the F. I. R. As a member of the unlawful assembly having participated in the murderous attack resulting in the death of one person and injuries to five others and as such the belated plea of alibi put forth by him could not be considered as a sufficient ground for his enlargement as held in Iqbal-ur- Rahman's case mentioned above.

5. We have already referred to the discussion of the two relevant authorities contained in the impugned order and see no reasons to come to the conclusion that the learned Judge had acted unreasonably or perversely. The crux of the matter is that no less than 20 Advocates supported the plea of alibi raised by respondent No, 1 and a normal judicial mind would not have re-acted differently to its persuasive force. Accordingly, we see no ground for interference and dismiss the petition.

6. Before parting with this case we would, however, like to point out that in the concluding paragraph of his order, the learned Judge seems to have slightly over-stepped the limit when he referred to the possibility of the false implication of the respondent. This observation, it may be stated with respect, was uncalled for at this stage.