2017 P Cr (PLP)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

The petitioner, Muhammad Naseem Khan, seeks bail in case FIR No.33 dated 06.07.2016 registered under sections 302/324/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. read with section 512, Cr.P.C. at Police Station Nara Amazai Tehsil Ghazi District Haripur with the allegations that he along with his co-accused had committed the murder of Muhammad Farooq deceased. Arguments heard and available record perused.

2. As per the record, it was the complainant Mohsin Khan who reported about the incident on 06.07.2016 at 08:15 a.m. as to how at 07:30 a.m., after offering Eid-ul-Fitr prayers when he came out from the Jamia Masjid along with Yahya, Shaukat, Javed and his cousin Muhammad Farooq, they came across the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused Parvez, Sher Ali, Hazrat Ali, Tariq and Naseeb Shah who started altercating with them and then accused-petitioner caught hold of Muhammad Farooq while his co-accused Parvez gave him churri blow on the left side of his chest and then Parvez gave another churri blow to Yahya. The co-accused also caused injuries to the complainant party whereafter Muhammad Farooq succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot.

3. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that he has only been assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased Muhammad Farooq and moreover his co-accused namely, Hazrat Ali and Tariq have been allowed bail by this court vide order dated 24.08.2016 while the other co-accused Sher Ali and Naseeb Shah have been released on bail by learned ASJ, Ghazi on 01.11.2016, therefore, the accused-petitioner too, is entitled to bail keeping in view the principle of consistency. He also contended that in respect of the same occurrence, a cross version has been reported in case FIR No.40 dated 06.07.2016 under section 337-F(ii)/34, P.P.C. Police Station Nara Amazai District Haripur and the same prima facie takes the case to one of further inquiry entitling the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. Arguments heard and available record perused.

4. In the present case, in a promptly lodged FIR, the accused-petitioner has been assigned a specific role of catching hold of Muhammad Farooq whereafter the co-accused Parvez gave him a fatal churri blow on his chest, which resulted in his death on the spot. As such, it was indeed the accused-petitioner who by catching hold of deceased Muhammad Farooq placed him at the mercy of the co-accused Parvez who in turn gave him a hatchet blow at the place of his choice. But for such facilitation by the accused-petitioner, deceased Muhammad Farooq would definitely have taken some safety measures to ward off the hatchet blow of Parvez. Thus the accused- petitioner cannot draw a parallel between his role and that of the co-accused who have been allowed bail and hence the rule of consistency is not attracted in his favour. Taking a tentative assessment of the available record, the accused-petitioner is prima facie linked with the commission of the offence which is certainly heinous in nature and falls within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. and is thus not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, this petition stands dismissed. Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded 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 strictly on its own merits after recording evidence. WA/21/P Bail refused.