2007 PLP 1935 (MLD)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Through instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for their 'release on bail, after having failed to obtain bail from the learned two Courts below, in case F.I.R. No. 1122, dated 6-6-2007, registered at Police Station, Mingora, Swat, under sections 302/34, P.P.C.

2. On receipt of information that two dead bodies were lying in Central Hospital, Saidu Sharif, Swat, Bahrain Khan, S.-I. reached the hospital, where Sajjad complainant lodged a report to the effect that he (complainant) Rahim and Gohar Ali serve with Ali Cable, situated near police Chowki Nabar Mingora, Swat. On the eventful day i.e. 6-6-2007, they had gone to Village Kanjo for a work. They were chased by Naeem Salim and Imran sons of Shah Zaman. An altercation took place between them but they were separated. They went back to the Cable Office. The said three persons and Shah Zamin followed them and again started altercation with them. During the scuffle, the accused party stabbed to death Rahim and Gohar Ali. Motive for the tragedy was stated to be non payment of monthly Cable fee by the petitioners.

3. I have heard Mian Amir Qadir, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Waheedullah, Advocate for the State assisted by Muhammad Qayum, advocate far the complainant and perused the record of the case.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case; that there is no evidence, which links the petitioers with the commission of the offence. That there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that no specific role has been attributed to any of the petitioners; that no recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the petitioners except the alleged recovery of .weapon of offence from Imran, one of the petitioners and that no confession has been made by the petitioners and having regard to facts and .circumstances of the case, learned Courts below had no justifiable reason to decline bail to the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on Jaffar and others v. The State (1980 SCMR 784), Karam Dad and others, v. Muhammad Younas and ethers (2005 PCr.LJ 1535), Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State (2005 MLD 962), Muhammad Saleem v. The .State and another (2003 MLD 145), Muhammad Aslam Khan v. The State (206 PCr.LJ 702) and Muhammad Ismail and 2 others v. The State and 2 others (2005 MLD 786).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and complainant opposed the bail application tooth and nail, maintaining that two persons have been brutally killed for no reason and prima facie case exists against the petitioners and they are not entitled to be released on bail.

6. The question of grant/refusal of bail is to be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the prosecution .satisfies the Court, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accuse has committed the offence falling in the first category, the Court .must refused bail. However, where the accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence then the Court must release him on bail. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of offence, the Court will not conduct a preliminary inquiry but will only have tentative assessment of the material on the record. Deeper appreciation of evidence, and circumstances appearing in the case are neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage.

7. In the instant case, the .petitioners stand .directly nominated in the promptly lodged report for commisson of the offence in question, resulting in the murder of two innocent persons i.e. Rahim and Gohar Ali. The medical evidence, site-plan and witnesses of the spot fully support the charge. The mere fact that no specific role has been assigned to any of the petitioners and there are general allegations, by itself, cannot be considered a good ground for grant of bail.. The application is rejected and bail is refused.

8. The observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand. H.B.T./165/P Bail refused.