2003 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Habib Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 18th November, 2002. Through the present application (Criminal Miscellaneous No.1055 of 2002), the petitioners seek post‑arrest bail in case registered against them under sections 324/429/148/149, P.P.C. read with sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, vide F.I.R. No.27 slated 19‑7‑2000 Police Station Kalkot, District Dir.

2. The petitioners submitted an application in the Court‑of Sessions Judge/Zila Qazi, Dir for grant of bail which was declined vide order dated 1‑8‑2002. The petitioners have approached this Court with the similar prayer.

3. Khawaja Muhammad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the site plan prepared in this case and attempted to argue that the petitioners had no hand in the offence and that they were falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the two groups. Additionally he urged that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioners with the guilt and that a wide net has been thrown to implicate all the male members of the petitioners' family which clearly exhibits mala fides of the complainant. To augment the contentions, he placed reliance on Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34.

4. Controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners, Malik Haroon Iqbal, Advocate for the complainant assisted by Mr. Habib Qureshi, Advocate learned counsel for the State, opposed the bail application and contended with vehemence that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the concession of bail has been rightly refused to the petitioners for valid reasons and the petitioners have not succeeded to make out a. case for the grant of bail.

5. I have heard at length the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file.

6. The case against the petitioners has been registered, on 19‑7‑2000 at about 17‑30 hours at the instance of Jan Faqir complainant The allegation against .the petitioners is that on the fateful day, i.e. 19‑7‑2000 at 12‑00 noon, the complainant alongwith his family members was present in his house in Banda Washoo when in the meanwhile the petitioners started indiscriminate tiring from the nearby hillock as a result of which a goat was hit, and died at the spot. The complainant and his family members escaped unhurt. Ghazi son of Ghulam and Abdul Ghani son of Sher Ali and other co‑villagers witnessed the occurrence. The motive behind the incident was stated to be a dispute over Washoo (hillock).

7. The petitioners are accused of having on 19‑7‑2000 at about 12 noon opened indiscriminate firing on the house of the complainant from the nearby hillock. The firing is stated to have continued for sufficient long time and it was stopped at the intervention of the elders of the locality. The petitioners remained fugitive from law after the occurrence and it was on 12‑7‑2002 when they were arrested. Warrants under, section 204, Cr.P.C. had been issued against them on 3‑8‑2000 and the formalities under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. were completed on 8‑7‑2000. Challan under section 512, Cr.P.C. was submitted against them on 9‑3‑2002. Challan under section 512, Cr.P.C. was submitted against them on 19‑3‑2002.

8. It needs no reiteration that before releasing the accused on bail, the Court is required to apply its mind keeping in view the provisions contained in subsection (1) of section 497 and subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. in its totality and the sine qua non, for releasing the accused on bail is that the Court should come to the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed a non- bailable offence as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to do justice, keeping in view the particular facts of each case. The bail in the cases of commission of non‑bailable offences and particularly falling in the prohibitory clause in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is not to be granted as a matter of course, with a simple sentence that it is a case of further inquiry and without keeping in view the entire provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C.

9. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file I find that there is sufficient incriminating material on file to implicate the petitioners with the guilt and the unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitles them to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case. Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 402, Raees Khan v. Said Hanif and another 1979 SCMR 90, Azhar Hussain and another v. The State 1983 SCMR 978 and Nauroz Khan v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 698 (Peshawar).

10. From all this material placed on record there appears to tile reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners have been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and may not be released. The application fails and bail is refused. The learned trial Court shall speed up disposal of the case and refrain from giving unnecessary adjournments. S.M.A.H./673/P Bail refused.