1988 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Bail, grant of Nine prosecution witnesses already examined and only two remaining Case likely to be concluded soon--Court can examine and appreciate prosecution evidence for granting or refusing bail but it would not be proper to comment on credibility of evidence when case was nearing completion--Bail refused in circumstances.--[Evidence]. A.M. Naqvi for Applicant. Zaheer Qureshi for the State. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed for the Complainant. The applicant /accused is facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. for allegedly having committed murder of one Yousuf. The motive of the murder is said to be that the accused wanted to marry Jahan Zeba, who was engaged to the deceased. The evidence against the applicant is that he was last seen with the deceased and furthermore blood-stained clothes were washed by Mst. Khanzadgai and that one Chhuri which is alleged to be the weapon of offence was recovered on his pointation by the police. This Chhuri and clothes of the applicant were sent to the Chemical Analyser and as stated by Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed learned counsel for the complainant who is assisted by the learned counsel for the State, the Chemical Analyser's report is positive with respect to both the articles which fact is not disputed by Mr. A.M. Naqvi, learned counsel for the accused. 2. Earlier bail application moved by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court. Mr. A.M. Naqvi submits, that when the earlier application was dismissed, no witness was examined and now, about nine witnesses have been examined. He contends that the evidence on record shows that the injuries on the person of the accused could not have been inflicted by Chhuri, allegedly recovered from the accused person and further that when according to the prosecution the clothes were washed, the Chemical Analyser's report that they were blood-stained is open to doubt. It is further submitted, that the father of Jahan Zeba does not support the story with respect to motive for the murder and further, that the accused was arrested from the house of the complainant, when on the next date of incident, he had come to visit the deceased. 3. No doubt at the time of considering the bail application, the Court can examine and appreciate the prosecution evidence for the purpose of granting or refusing the bail, but it is stated by Mr. Zahir Qureshi and Mr. Khawaja Naveed, that one or two witnesses remain to be examined and the prosecution case will be completed within this month. Mr. A.M. Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that for six months no witness was examined. However, in view of undertaking of the learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant, I find no reason to doubt their statement. As the case is nearing completion, it would not be proper to comment on the credibility of the prosecution evidence at this stage. Under the circumstances the bail application is dismissed at this stage and the trial Court is directed to complete the case within three months. This will not debar the applicant from moving application under third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. if the facts so warrant. S.A./K-64/K Bail refused.