2026 PLP 61 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

Through the instant petition, Petitioner/accused who is detained in judicial lock up seeks his enlargement on bail in case arising out of FIR bearing No.152/2024 offences under sections 302, 324/34, P.P.C registered at police station City Gilgit.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant post arrest bail petition are that the complainant namely Zaheer Alam son of Aabid Ur Rehman resident of Sakarkui Gilgit has submitted an application before SHO Police Station City Gilgit stating therein that on 24-07-2024 at about 11.15 PM the present complainant and his four companions named in the FIR were coming back from the house of one deceased toward their home. Suddenly, at 11.30 P.M accused Aziz ur Rehman and Mujeeb-ur-Rehman opened fires on deceased Saqib Hussain son of Muhamad Qayyum near the house of Salam Taj, which hit the head of Saqib Husssain who died on the spot. In the meanwhile the accused Aziz-ur-Rehman opened fire towards other victims. Resultantly, Waqar Alam and Ahmad son of Sher Alam (deceased) sustained injuries, hence, criminal proceedings may be initiated against the accused.

3. On receipt of the application/written complaint of the complainant the SHO police station city has registered the instant FIR, arrested the present accused/petitioner and after completion of the usual investigation got committed the present accused/petitioner to judicial lock up at Gilgit.

4. The accused/petitioner had filed bail application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner/accused vide order dated 19-03-2025. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Gilgit the present petitioner/accused has preferred the instant post bail application before this Court on the grounds detailed in the petition in hand.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention in league with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that police have wrongly implicated the petitioner/accused in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner/accused is false, fabricated, concocted and an exaggerated view of local police. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused /petitioner is involved in the case under section 324, P.P.C, whereas offence under section 324, P.P.C is not attract in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the co-accused namely Zarar Ahmad has been discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C. by the police, hence, rule of consistency fully applies to the petitioner's case and the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the recovery has been effected with due delay. The learned counsel further submitted that motive behind the occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the occurrence has been taken place during midnight and there is no source/light to identify the accused/petitioner, hence, case of the petitioner requires further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that allegedly the bullet had hit on non-vital part of the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and trial of the accused has not been commenced so far, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail, which may be allowed to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied on the following case laws- 1. 2008 SCMR 1621. 2. 2020 SCMR 971.

6. On the other hand the learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and defended the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit by contending that the petitioner/ accused is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the offence under section 324, P.P.C is not bailable and fully attracted to the petitioner's case. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that Prosecution witnesses link the petitioner/accused with the alleged crime. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that two victims namely Waqar Alam and Ahmad have sustained injuries and they have fully supported the prosecution version. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner in presence of independent witness. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that medico legal report also supports the prosecution version. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that there is no possibility of misidentification as the accused and complainant belong to same locality and well known to each other. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit has rightly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner/accused after correct appreciation of material available on file. The learned AAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish the grounds agitated in the petition in hand, hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.

7. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record available on file.

8. Perusal of record reveals that the accused/petitioner has been directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of opening fires on the complainant party which hit two victims namely Waqar Alam and Ahmad and they have sustained bullet injuries. Offence under section 324, P.P.C falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Eye-witnesses have witnessed the occurrence and complainant is also witness of the occurrence, who was present at the place of occurrence. 9 Besides the ocular testimony of Pws, medico legal report is also in line with the narrations given in the FIR. Weapon of offence and empty shells of .30 bore pistol have been recovered on the pointation of the accused/petitioner in presence of independent marginal witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner/accused prima facie, reasonably linked with the alleged crime and he is not entitled for concession of bail.

10. On tentative assessment of the available record reasonable grounds also exist, which connect the accused/petitioner with the commission of offence, falls within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed. The above observations of this Court being tentative in nature shall have no bearing on the merits of the case at the time of final decision by the trial Court. File. JK/20/GB Bail dismissed.