2007 PLP 1041 (YLR)

SALIM KHAN, J.

Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner referred to the F.I.R. lodged by Amir Jan and contended that Amir Jan showed his ignorance "regarding the culprits but charged the accused/petitioner along with others. He referred to the application of Rahmatullah under section 22, Cr.P.C. and submitted that Rahmatullah brought forward a second version. He also referred to the statements of Rahmatullah and Gul Rahman recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and contended that the said statements mentioned a third version of the occurrence. He also referred to the affidavit of Mst. Zar Begum where the present petitioner has been charged but produced Mst. Zar Begum who stated today that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the present petitioner as she did not know that who had fired at her. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the site plan and contended that the site-plan suggested that the deceased Wali-ur-Rahman was fired at by his brothers. He relied on PLD 1972 Supreme Court 277, 2003 PCr.LJ 2036, 2003 PCr.LJ 1944 as well as 2004 PCr.LJ

870. He contended that it was a case of further inquiry and there was doubt in the prosecution version, and the benefit of doubt was to be extended to the accused/petitioner at this bail stage.

2. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Amir Jan had lodged the initial report, but Rahmatullah had also lodged a report on the same date which was not recorded by the police and Rahmatullah submitted an application in that respect mentioning his oral version. He further submitted that Mst. Zar Begum may have no objection at this stage, but she has already given affidavit and statement to the effect that the present petitioner has fired at her. He contended that the evidence and other record on the file was not to be deeply appreciated at this stage and was to be tentatively assessed. He also stated that the trial has already commenced and that the accused/petitioner, through paras.C and D of his petition, supported the version of the prosecution. It was further contended by him that the accused/petitioner has absconded for certain length of time and was not entitled to the concession of bail while his co-accused are still absconding, including the complainant Amir Jan.

3. The learned counsel for the State contended that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the original F.I.R. in the application of Rahmatullah as well as in the statement/affidavit of Mst. Zar Begum and he is not entitled to the grant of bail at this stage.

4. I heard the arguments and perused the record. The accused petitioner was charged by Amir Jan but without his confidence that who had fired at him and at deceased Wali-ur-Rahman, Rahmatullah directly charged the present petitioner and the. affidavit of Mst. Zar Begum was also to the same effect. The accused/petitioner is charged under section 302, P.P.C. along with section 324, P.P.C. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Though commencement of trial, by itself, is not a good ground for refusal of bail, yet the trial Court has every power to grant or refuse bail in the light of fresh evidence brought on file during the trial. As the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R., application and statement, and there are no extraordinary circumstances which may entitle the accused/petitioner to the grant of bail, I dismiss the present bail petition of the present petitioner. S.A.K./48/P Bail refused.