2024 PLP 7 (MLD)

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.

Accused-petitioner Naseem Khan son of Muhammad Ayub Khan seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 144 dated 27.02.2022 under sections 302/427/148/ 149/109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Khazana, Peshawar. He, at first instance, was refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Model Criminal Trial Court, Peshawar through an order dated 05.01.2023.

2. It is squeal out from the contents of the murasila that on 27.02.2022, complainant Ayaz Khan son of Rambail reported the matter that he was present in his house when received information regarding the murder of his brother Fayaz and when reached to the spot, he found the dead body of his brother, who was done to death by some unknown person by firing at him hence, the present FIR.

3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG on behalf of the State heard and record with their valuable assistance gone through.

4. It is a fact that no one is charged in the first information report by the complainant however, later on, accused-petitioner along with co-accused have been charged by Rashid Ullah son of Saeed Ullah in his supplementary statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate on 16.04.2022 wherein, specific role of firing upon the deceased has been attributed to the accused-petitioner Naseem Khan. Moreover, mother of the deceased namely Mst. Rekham Jan also recorded her 164, Cr.P.C. statement before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar on 01.08.2022 wherein, accused-petitioner Naseem along with co-accused have been charged for the murder of her son. It is also on record that previously, the accused-petitioner Naseem Khan along with co-accused were charged by the deceased Fayaz in another case vide FIR No.889 dated 27.12.2015 under sections 302-324-34-427, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Khazana for attempting at his life as well as at the lives of Sajid and Javed by firing at them effectively out of whom, Javed succumbed to his injuries and died there and then. There are other FIRs available on record wherein, the accused-petitioner Naseem Khan has been charged in similar nature cases. At present, recovery of two empties from the spot, FSL report with regard to the blood stained earth, Post Mortem report, blood stained earth along with other material available on record are linked in chain, prima facie stands connected the accused- petitioner with the commission of the offence. So far as arguments of learned counsel for accused-petitioner with regard to rule of consistency is concerned, the role attributed to the petitioner with those accused, who are enlarged on bail, is quite different as he has been charged by Rashid Ullah in his 164, Cr.P.C. statement with specific role of firing upon the deceased and likely, mother of the deceased also charged him in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. hence, rule of consistency does not attract to his case. Apart from the above, the accused-petitioner, after the commission of offence, remained an absconder for sufficient time till his arrest on 02.12.2022 and during his absconsion, proceedings under sections 204 and 87, Cr.P.C. have been completed against him. The punishment provided for the offence falls within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, in all probabilities with particular involvement of the petitioner in FIR No. 889 dated 27.12.2015 for injuring the deceased before his qatl-i-amd whereby, he is circumstantially linked, cannot set his case for the grant of bail.

5. Suffice it to mention that Imtiaz Khan OII, Police Station Khazana has furnished legible copies of the FIRs registered against the petitioner and states about him to be a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khazana. On account of his inhuman and blood thirsty nature, the victims of his atrocities are scared and rarely charge him in cases like this one who is the real character behind the murder of deceased Fayaz.

6. This petition, having no force, is hereby dismissed.

7. The observations penned above are tentative in nature and are restricted to bail stage only and shall have no bearing at the time of trial, which shall be concluded expeditiously. MQ/197/P Bail refused.