1996 S C M R 1845

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J, Fazal Ilahi Khan and Muhammad Bashir
Khan Jehangiri, JJ

SHOAIB MEHMOOD BUTT---Petitioner

versus

IFTIKHAR-UL-HAQ and 3 others---Respondents

Criminal Petitions Nos. 183 of 1995 and 39 of 1996, decided on 17th July,
1996.

(On appeal from the judgments/orders dated 13-11-1195 and 21-4-1996 in

Criminal Misc. No. 747-B/95 and Criminal Misc. No. 247-B/96 of the
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench).

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)---Bail---Appreciation of evidence---Scope---Principles---Court

while deciding bail applications, could resort to tentative sifting of
evidence as distinguished from elaborate sifting of evidence and the
contention that bail could not be granted if plea pressed turned on
appreciation of evidence was not correct---Exercise of jurisdiction in bail
matters, guidelines provided.

While deciding bail application, Court could resort to tentative sifting of

evidence as distinguished from elaborate sifting of evidence and the
contention that bail could not be granted if plea pressed turned on
appreciation of evidence was not correct.

To determine the question whether bail was to be granted or not, the

Court was bound to make tentative assessment of the material placed
before it. The Court, however, had to refrain, directly or indirectly, from
giving any conclusive finding on the question of guilt or innocence of
accused.

Trial Court has to analyse the legal worth of material to be produced by

the parties including affidavits and during hearing of bail application,
the Court can make tentative assessment of material which is different
from and not at equal footing with appraisement of evidence, which is
within the ambit of jurisdiction of the trial Court.

Khalid Javed Gillan v. State PLD 1978 SC 256 and Sarwar Sultan v. State
PLD 1994 SC 133 ref.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Bail, grant of---Further
enquiry---Sufficiency---Question of further enquiry should be such which
should have nexus with the result of the case and may show or tend to
show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged.

Under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. bail is to be allowed if it appears to the Court

that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into the guilt of the
accused. Now what would constitute as sufficient grounds for further
enquiry would depend on the peculiar facts of each case and no hard and
fast rule can be laid down for that purpose. Every hypothetical question
which can be imagined would not make it a case of further enquiry
simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial Court
subsequently after evaluation of evidence. Broadly speaking, the
condition laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is that there are
sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt which means that the
question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and
may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with
which he is charged. For example, if accused is charged for offence under
section 302, P.P.C. but there are grounds for further enquiry which may
show that he may not be convicted of the charge under section 302, P.P.C.
but may be acquitted or convicted for a lesser offence.

Shahzaman v. State PLD 1994 SC 65 ref.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Bail, grant of---Further

enquiry---Case of two counter-versions arising from the same incident,
one given by complainant in F.LR. and the other given by the opposite-
party---Such cases, held, were covered for grant of ball on the ground, of
further enquiry as contemplated under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Principles.

In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by

complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite-party it is
almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the ground
of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In such
cases normally, ball is granted on the ground of further enquiry for the
reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be decided by
the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also appraise
the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In cases of
counter-versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken giving rise to
question as to which party is aggressor and which party is aggressed
against.

Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad 1976 SCMR 391 and Shafiqan v. Hashim
Ali and others 1972 SCMR 682 ref.

(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Bail---Case of counter?-

versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in
F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite-party---Contentions raising
questions as to which version in the two F.I.Rs. is correct and which party
is aggressor and which party is aggressed against can be gone into and
decided by Trial Court only after elaborate evaluation of the , evidence
recorded by it and not at the bail stage.

(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Bails grant of---Observations made by High Court in the orders

granting bail and by Supreme Court are confined to tentative assessment
made for the purpose of disposal of bail applications and are not
intended to influence the mind of Trial Court which is free to appraise
the evidence strictly according to the merits of the case and the law at the
time of disposal of the case.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Nawaz

Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate?-on-
Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).

S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan,
Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in Cr.P. No. 183 of 1995).

Sardar M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan,

Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Cr.P. No. 59 of
1996).

Date of hearing: 17th July, 1996.

ORDER

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---Petitioner Shoaib Mehmood Butt is complainant

in the case and brother of deceased Arif Butt. He has filed two petitions
mentioned above seeking leave to appeal against grant of bail by a
learned Single Judge of .the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench to
the accused persons. The private respondents in both these petitions are
facing trial for offences under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. in the
double murder case in which two persons, namely, Arif Butt and Saeedul
Hassan died as a result of fire-arm injuries and others were injured. In
Criminal Petition No.183/95 filed in this Court the learned Single Judge of
the High Court has granted bail vide order dated 13-11-1995 to each of
the three respondents, namely, Iftikhar-ul?-Haq, Anwar-ul-Haq and Qazi
Muhammad Ijaz in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like
amount. In Criminal Petition No.59/96 filed before us, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court has granted bail to each of the two respondents,
namely, Ikram-ul-Haq and Gulfraz Abbasi vide order dated 21-4-1996 in
the sum of Rs.500,000 with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. The incident took place on 30-5-1995 in Khurshid Palace near Kashmir

Road, which is at the distance of one kilometre from Police Station Cantt.,
Rawalpindi. According to complainant Shoaib Mehmood Butt, he is
running business as "Butt Electronics" in two shops in Khurshid Palace
within the Cantonment area. The tenancy of the disputed shops is in the
name of Dilawar Mehmood Khan alias Dara. The respondents named
above alongwith 25/30 persons came to the shops, informed the
complainant that they had obtained a decree of possession from the Civil
Court and wanted to take possession of the shops. They started taking out
items from the stock and putting them outside. There was exchange of
harsh words between the parties as the complainant claimed to have no
knowledge of the proceedings. Meantime, Nasir Butt, brother of
complainant, brought a stay order from the Civil Court which was
announced loudly by Muhammad Arif Butt saying that dispossession
would not take place. Butt respondents Iftikhar-ul-Haq and Ikram-ul-Haq,
who were armed with rifles, and Anwar-ul-Haq, who was armed with a
pistol, fired shots as a result whereof Arif Butt and one passerby got
wounded and died and two other persons became injured, and
complainant while running was also hit by something and became
injured. According to complainant, he took his injured brother Arif Butt
to the hospital who died on the way. While coming to the police station
he was delayed by heavy traffic and reached the police station at 6-00
p.m. and filed F.I.R. No. 156/95 in which time of the incident is given as 3-
30 p.m. and time of the report is given as 6-05 p.m. The version of the
incident is same as narrated above.

3. Another version of the same incident is contained in F.I.R. No. 155/95

that was filed at the same police station at 5-15 p.m. on the same day by
Karamat Hussain Bailiff in which the incident is shown to have taken
place on the same day at the same place at 3-30 p.m. In this F.I.R.
No.155/95, the version of the incident is that landlord Anwar-ul-Haq had
obtained order of eviction in respect of Shops Nos.8 and 9 situate in
Khurshid Palace, Kashmir Road, Rawalpindi, against Dilawar Khan alias
Dara and he came to the spot for execution of that eviction order
alongwith police party, Anwar-ul-Haq and Ikrarn-ul-Haq. He reached the
shops at 2-45 p.m, and found Shoaib Mehmood Butt there. He started
execution of the eviction order and got removed items of stock from the
shops and placed them outside. At 3-30 p.m. Muhammad Arif came inside
the shops and protested on which he was shown the writ of eviction.
There was exchange of harsh words between Muhammad Arif and
Anwar-ul?Haq who grappled with each other. The A.S.-I. of the police
party separated them. Meanwhile Shoaib Mehmood Butt went out of the
shops and after sometime came back and by that time all the goods in the
shops had been removed and placed outside and eviction was complete.
At about 4-00 p.m. Nasir came in the shop in a state of temper and asked
Muhammad Arif to bring pistol from his car and fire at the persons who
had come to dispossess them.

4. Meanwhile, firing started outside the shops and bailiff Karamat

Hussain and Anwar-ul-Haq hid themselves in a small room. After the
firing was over, both of them came out and were informed by the Sub-
Inspector that Muhammad Arif, on the instigation of his brother Nasir,
fired from his thirty-bore pistol at persons standing near Javad Motors
which is the shop of Anwar-ul-Haq. Two other persons joined
Muhammad Arif and assisted him in the act of firing. In reply Abdul
Hameed son of Bagh Ali and other two persons also fired from Jawad
Motors as a result whereof Muhammad Arif, Saeedul Hassan and Gulfraz
Abbasi became injured and were taken to the hospital. It is, stated in
F.I.R. No. 155/95 that this incident as such took place on account of
resistance of Muhammad Arif and Nasir Mehmood to the execution of
the writ of eviction and the said incident was seen by Karamat Hussain,
Anwar-ul-Haq, and the Sub?-Inspector of the police and other persons. A
case was registered against Muhammad Arif, Nasir Mehmood and others.

5. Respondents/accused persons applied for bail before arrest which was

declined. Thereafter, they applied for bail after arrest. Not succeeding in
getting relief from the lower Courts, they approached the High Court: In
the first instance, Criminal Miscellaneous No.747-B/95 was filed by
Ifitikhar-ul-Haq, Anwar-ul-Haq and Qazi Muhammad Ijaz. The bail
application was vehemently opposed by the counsel of the complainant
in the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court noted the
contentions in detail raised by both the parties in favour of and against
grant of bail. The High Court has granted bail vide impugned order dated
13-11-1995 on the grounds mentioned therein preferring the version
contained in the first F.I.R. No.155/95 registered by Karamat Hussain
Bailiff. This order is challenged in Criminal Petition No.183/95. The High
Court has granted bail vide order dated 21-4-1996 to two respondents
before us, namely, Ikram-ul-Haq and Gulfraz Abbasi on the grounds,
inter alia,
that it is a case of two versions contained in the two F.I.Rs. and that it is
for the trial Court to determine as to which version is true. In this order
as well High Court has preferred the version contained in F.I.R. No.155/95
registered by Karamat Hussain, Bailiff. This order of grant of bail has
been challenged in Criminal Petition No.59/96.

6. We have heard at length Raja Muhammad Anwar, Sr. A.S.C. for the
petitioner, in favour of cancellation of bail and Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr. A.S.C.
for respondents Nos:1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Petition No.183/95 and Sardar
Muhammad Ishaq, A.S.C. for respondents Nos.l and 2 in Criminal Petition
No.59/96, who were present in the Court on caveat. Mr. Muhammad
Aslam, A.S.C., was present on behalf of the Advocate-General, Punjab to
whom notice had already been issued by this Court. Against grant of bail,
Raja Muhammad Anwar vociferously argued that the High Court has
overstepped its jurisdiction and authority by making deep analysis which
amounts to appraisement of evidence which is yet to be recorded and
also is the exclusive function of the trial Court. Hence the case of the
complainant has seriously been prejudiced because of the finding in the
orders of the High Court that the version contained in F.I.R. No. 155/95 is
true. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Zafar and Sardar M. Ishaque for the
respondents have elaborately defended the orders passed by the High
Court granting bail and averred stoutly that in doing so the High Court
has not exceeded its jurisdiction but has acted within the four corners of
the guidelines laid down in the case-law on the subject defining scope of
making tentative assessment of evidence and material available at the
time of hearing of bail applications.
7. Before we go into the legal angles, as advocated by the learned counsel
for the parties, it would be pertinent to see and take into consideration
the evidence. and material available on the record. The incident took
place on 30-5-1995 in respect of which two F.I.Rs. have been registered.
The first F.I.R. No.155/95 has been lodged by Karamat Hussain, Bailiff, at
5-15 p.m. and the second F.I.R. No.156/95 has been lodged by complainant
Shoaib Mehmood Butt at 6-05 p.m. at the same police station. The
versions contained in both the F.I.Rs. have already been mentioned
above in the preceding paragraphs and need not. be repeated. It would
be suffice to say that in the first F.I.R. No.155/95 the incident has been
divided into two parts. In the first part the order of eviction passed by the
Court was executed in the shops and the items of merchandise were
removed during which Nasir, brother of the complainant, came and
instigated his other brother, Muhammad Arif Butt. In the second part,
Muhammad Arif Butt brought out pistol from the car and fired at the
persons standing near Jawad Motors (shop of Anwar-ul-Haq). Firing was
returned from Jawad Motors by Abdul Hameed son of Bagh Ali and in the
result Muhammad Arif Butt, Saeed vi-Hassan and Gulfraz Abbasi were
injured and taken to the hospital, Karamaf Hussain, Bailiff, who is
complainant in this F.I.R., has admitted that at the time of firing he and
Anwar-ul-Haq while being present in
the shops, hid themselves in a small room due to fear, hence he was not
an eye?witness to the actual firing and could not say who hit whom. He
learnt about the details of the firing from Sub-Inspector Ali Asghar who
has been cited as eye?witness. Presence of both these witnesses at the
spot is supported by the fact that they had came to execute the writ of
possession issued by the Court in respect of the shops in dispute.

8. The second F.I.R. No. 156/95 has been lodged by complainant Shoaib
Mehmood Butt, brother of deceased Muhammad Arif Butt. It was
registered later in point of time than F.I.R. No. 155/95. The version
contained in this F.I.R. is that the respondents before us and 25/30 other
persons came to the shops to take possession under the order of eviction
passed by the Civil Court. Before vacation was complete, Nasir, brother of
the complainant, brought stay order from the Civil Court and
Muhammad Arif Butt announced loudly in the passage that dispossession
would not take place. Three persons, namely, Ikram-ul-Haq, Iftikhar-ul-
Haq and Anwar-ul-Haq, who were all armed fired and in the result
Muhammad Arif Butt and one passerby became injured and died. The
stay order as such has not been produced and is not available in the
record. However, the report of Sh. Muhammad Khalil, Advocate, who
was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Civil Court, is available in
the record. Seemingly, he arrived at the spot after the incident was over
and in his report he has mentioned so of the fact that possession of the
shops in dispute had .already been taken over from the tenant and the
shops were locked and the goods were lying out.

9. After consideration of both the F.I.Rs. and the material available on the
record, the High Court has granted bail vide order dated 13-11-1995 on
the grounds that Dilawar Khan was the tenant of the shops and even if
the complainant was running business jointly with Dilawar Khan, the
complainant had no business to resist execution of the writ of possession.
F.I.R. No. 155/95 was registered prior in point of time and presence of the
Bailiff has been supported by the Sub-Inspector and other members of
the police party. Complainant Shoaib Mehmood Butt has suppressed the
presence of the Bailiff and the police party at the spot. Qazi Muhammad
Ijaz has not been assigned any specific role in the F.I.R. Though it has
been alleged that Anwar-ul-Haq fired from pistol, but no crime empty of
pistol was recovered from the ' Wardat.

10. The High Court passed another order on 21-4-1996 and granted bail to
lkram-ul-Haq and Gulfraz Abbasi, who are respondents before us in
Criminal Petition No.59/96, on the grounds that it was a case of two
versions. Muhammad Arif was troublemaker as he fired at the persons
near Jawad Motors and firing was returned by Abdul Hameed in the
result whereof Muhammad Arif and other became injured including -
Gulfraz Abbasi. Complainant Shoaib Mehmood Butt in the second F.I.R.
did not mention the roles played by Ikram-ul-Haq and Gulfraz Abbasi. No
explanation was furnished as to how Gulfraz Abbasi was injured.
Covering the same incident two F.I.Rs. have been? filed and it was for the
trial Court to say which F.I.R. was true. The accused persons had taken
the plea of private defence.

11. Before us Raja Muhammad Anwar for the petitioner contended that
the High Court had erred in making deep analysis of the material
brought on the record and should not have given finding that F.I.R. No.
155/95 was correct. Bail should not have been granted at the stage of
investigation. Two Investigating Officers had shown complainant party
as aggressor but the final report supported by the D.S.P., the S.P. and the
D.I.-G. showed that the seven accused were culprits as indicated in F.I.R.
No. 156/95. The learned counsel further argued that complainant Shoaib
Mehmood Butt had made investment in the purchase of merchandise
which was being sold in the shops of Dilawar Khan and the latter was
mixed up with the landlords and obliged them in the eviction
proceedings in the trial Court.

12. As against that Mr. S.M. Zafar for the respondents in Criminal Petition
No.183/95 contended before us that Anwar-ul-Haq was arrested on 3-6-
1995 and no pistol was recovered from him, nor any crime empties of
pistol were recovered from the ' Wardat'. Qazi Muhammad Ijaz was
arrested on 3-6-1995 but his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R.
Iftikhar-ul-Haq was arrested on 12-6-1995 and, according to the F.I.R., he
was. armed with a rifle, but no recovery was made from him and no
specific part was assigned to him. The learned counsel further stated in
his summing up that his clients after remaining in jail from June, 1995 to
November, 1995 were released on bail but no allegation has been made
that the facility of bail has been misused. It is the case of two versions
and plea of private defence is also taken. He further stated that Anwar-ul-
Haq is a law graduate and was educated in America.
13. Sardar M. Ishaq for the respondents in Criminal Petition No.59/96
contended before us that the complainant party had, nothing to do with
the shops in dispute in which Dilawar Khan was tenant. They had no
business to interfere with the execution proceedings against Dilawar
Khan who had signed in acknowledgement of possession of the said
shops having been handed over to the landlords. Gulfraz Abbasi was
wounded in the chest and was hopsitalised and he was abducted by the
complainant party. The police did not register F.I.R., hence direct
complaint was filed. The learned counsel further argued that the
complainant party was aggressor and the accused party fired in private
defence. It is the case of the prosecution that eight empties matched with
the rifle of Ikram-ul-Haq, which is proof of firing but not of murder.
Gulfraz Abbasi is not named as accused in F. I. R. No.156/95. It is for the
trial Court to decide which party is aggressor. Mr. Muhammad Aslam for
the Advocate-General, Punjab supported grant of bail by the High Court
by the impugned orders.

14. We have reproduced above the contentions raised by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties before us in order to determine the
very crucial point involved in the disposal of these two bail applications
for cancellation of bail. The crucial question is as to what is the scope of
grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as contemplated under
section 497(2), Cr.P.C. which enables the Court to grant bail if it appears to
such Court that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into the
guilt of accused and pending such enquiry he can be released on bail.
Previously, bail used to be refused if plea raised turned on appreciation
of evidence. However, departure was made in the case of Khalid laved
Gillan v. State (PLD 1978 SC 256) in which for murder two accused were
named in the F.I.R. and there were two eye-witnesses. Petitioner Khalid
Javed Gillan applied for bail on the ground of plea of alibi that on the day
of the incident, which took place in Khanpur, at the relevant time he was
in Lahore as he had appointment with a doctor in the Mental Hospital.
He also produced a certificate of the doctor in respect of his plea. The
distance between Lahore and Khanpur is about 350 miles. Bail plea was
refused by the trial Court on the ground that it was specifically
mentioned in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had caused two dagger blows
to the deceased, hence plea of alibi was not entitled to any credit. The
High Court dismissed bail plea of the petitioner. This Court after survey
of the case-law on the subject came to the conclusion that while deciding
bail application, Court could resort to tentative sifting of evidence as
distinguished from elaborate sifting of evidence and the contention that
bail, could not be granted if plea pressed turned on appreciation of
evidence was not correct. It was further held that to determine the
question whether bail was to be granted or not, the Court was bound to
make tentative assessment of the material placed before it. The Court,
however, had to refrain, directly or indirectly, from giving any conclusive
finding on the question of guilt or innocence of accused. In the case of
Sarwar Sultan v. State (PLD 1994 SC 133) this Court has held that trial
Court has to analyse the legal worth of material to be produced by the
parties including affidavits and during hearing of bail application, the
Court can make tentative assessment of material which is different from
and not at equal footing with appraisement of evidence, which is within
the ambit of, jurisdiction of the trial Court.

15. In the case of Shahzaman v. State (PLD 1994 SC 65), three accused
persons faced trial for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. The trial Court
granted them bail on the grounds firstly that investigation vas dishonest
as the statement of Ashraf was not recorded who informed the
complainant. Secondly, post-mortem examination' did not take place and
there was no medical report showing nature of injuries to confirm the
allegation that injuries were caused by ' Lathis' and ' Saryas' . Thirdly,
evidence did not show clearly as to who caused the fatal injury. For such
reasons bail was granted under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as the case fell
within the purview of further enquiry. The High Court cancelled that
bail. The Court held that under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. bail is to be allowed
if it appears to the Court that there are sufficient grounds for further
enquiry into the guilt of the accused, Now what would constitute as
sufficient grounds for further enquiry would depend on the peculiar
facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for that
purpose. Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not
make it a case of further enquiry simply for 1pe reason that it can be
answered by the trial Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence.
Broadly speaking, the condition laid down in clause (2) of section 497,
Cr.P.C. is that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his
guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus
with the result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is
not guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For example, if
accused in charged for offence under section 302, P.P.C. but there are
grounds for further enquiry which may show that he may not be
convicted of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. but may be acquitted or
convicted for a lesser offence.

16. In case of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given
by complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite-party case-
law is almost settled that such cases are covered for grant of bail on the
ground of further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
In such cafes normally, bail is granted on the ground of further enquiry
for the reason that the question as to which version is correct is to be
decided by the trial Court which is supposed to record evidence and also
appraise the same in order to come to a final conclusion in this regard. In
cases of counter-versions, normally, plea of private defence is taken
giving rise to question as to which party is aggressor alri ?which party is
aggressed. In the case of Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad (19)0 SCMR 391)
in cross-cases the High Court granted bail to the accused on the ground
that there was probability of counter-version being true as some of the
accused had received injuries including a grievaous injury on the head of
one accused. It was held by this Court that in such circumstances the
High Court was right in granting bail and no interference was warranted,
In the same context, reference can be made to the case of Mst. Shafiqan v.
Hashim Ali and others (1972 SCMR 682).
17. In this case contentions are raised on behalf of both the parties to t46
effect as to which version in the two F.I.Rs. is correct and which party is
aggressor and which party is aggressed. Hence, the contentions relating
to these questions can be gone into and decided by the trial Court after
elaborate evaluation of the evidence recorded by it. We after careful
consideration of the orders passed by the High Court and the contentions
raised before us on behalf' of both the parties, are of the view that the
reasoning given by the High Court for the grant of bail is not perverse or
capricious warranting interference by this Court. For this proposition
reliance is placed on the cases of Ahmed v. Sheru (1979 SCMR 526) and
Tariq Bashir v. State (PLD 1995 SC 34). However, wt would like to point
out in no uncertain terms that the observations made by the High Court
in the orders granting bail and by us in this order are confined tot
tentative assessment made for the purpose of disposal of bail
applications and are not intended to influence the mind of the trial Court,
which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to its merits and
the law of the time of disposal o f the case which, of course it is needless
to say, is the function of the trial Court, For aforementioned reasons,
leave is refused and these petitions for cancellation of bail are hereby
dismissed.

M.B.A./S-1058/S
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????? Petitions dismissed.
;