2017 PLP 130 (YLRN)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner namely, Bakht Zada, seeks bail in case FIR No. 110 dated 09.04.2015 registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Khaki District Mansehra after the said relief was declined to him by the learned court below.

2. Allegations against the accused-petitioner are that he along with his co-accused had committed the murder of deceased Yousaf and Junejo as well as attempted at the life of Azeem Khan, hence the FIR ibid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused-petitioner has falsely been charged in the instant case for firing at the deceased namely, Yousaf and Junejo and attempting at the life of Azeem Khan; that no recovery of any empty from the spot assigned to the accused-petitioner in the site plan belies the complainant's version; that the medical report is in conflict with the ocular testimony furnished by the complainant and that the accused-petitioner was a juvenile being below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the offence as per the report of the medical board and all these circumstances bring his case within the ambit of further enquiry entitling him to the concession of bail.

4. Conversely, the learned AAG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition tooth and nail and contended that the accused-petitioner has been directly charged by the complainant for firing at his son, nephew and Azeem Khan which resulted into the death of the former two on the spot while the later escaped unhurt and that the offence for which the accused-petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., thus he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Arguments heard and the available record perused.

5. In the instant case, the complainant reported about the occurrence as narrated to him by the eye-witness Azeem Khan as to how the latter was grazing cattle accompanied by Yousaf and Junejo, son and nephew of the complainant respectively when in the meanwhile, the accused-petitioner and his brother, co-accused Khanzada duly armed with 30-bore pistols arrived at the spot and after some altercation, Junejo was fired at by Khanzada with which he was injured and died on the spot and when Yousaf and Azeem Khan tried to escape from the spot, the accused-petitioner chased them and fired at Yousaf on his face, who too, died on the spot.

6. The medical report is in line with the ocular account furnished by the eye-witness Azeem Khan. In a situation where Junejo was already done to death by Khanzada, brother of the accused-petitioner, still the present accused-petitioner Bakht Zada chased the deceased Yousaf for over thirty paces and ensured his death by firing at his mouth. In such background of the case, the accused-petitioner cannot press into service his plea of juvenility when the mode and manner in which he allegedly killed the deceased could be the doing of a mature and grown up person. Juvenility any way does not confer a right upon a person to deprive another person from his right to live. The mere non-recovery of the empty from the place of occurrence being a thoroughfare is not of much consequence.

7. Thus, taking a tentative assessment of the available record the accused-petitioner is prima facie linked with the commission of the offence which not only falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. but is also gruesome in its execution going by the contents of the FIR and hence he does not deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly, this bail petition stands dismissed. Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations in this order, being purely tentative in nature, shall in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits after recording evidence. WA/367/P Bail refused.