2004 PLP 1437 (MLD)

Petitioner Aurangzeb Khan is one of the accused persons involved in case F.I.R. No.31 dated 22‑2‑2004 registered at Police Station, Kakki under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He has moved instant application seeking his release on bail after refusal of the same from two forums below vide orders dated 20‑3‑2004 and 7‑4‑2004 respectively.

2. The petitioner is accused of having on 22‑2‑2004 at Shan Qazavela' in Barid Vial near company mosque, Kakki sharing his common intention with c6‑accused Muhammad Ali,, committed Qatl‑i -Amd of Iksar Ali Khan deceased and attempted murder of Asghar Ali complainant and his companion Qismat Ali.

3. Mr. Muhammad Shahnawaz Sikandari, Advocate for the petitioner contended that there is delay in loding of the F.I.R. which speaks volume about consultations and deliberations; that the occurrence having taken place at night time, the identity, of the culprits becomes doubtful; that elders of the locality are ready to file affidavits regarding innocence of the petitioner and that medical evidence, does not support the story of prosecution and as such the case is open to further inquiry and the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, learned Deputy Advocate -General for the State assisted by Mr. Muhammad Shahab Khan, Advocate for the complainant opposing the bail application, contended that the prosecution case being supported by ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence coupled with recovery of empties from the spot, the petitioner has been refused the concession of bail for cogent reasons and the impugned order is not open to exception.

5. The question of grant/refusal of bail is to be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. While the prosecution satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence falling in the first category, the Court must refuse bail. On the other hand, where the accused satisfied the Court that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there are; reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of offence, the Court will not conduct a preliminary inquiry/trial but will only make tentative assessment i.e. will take all the material collected by the police' for and against the accused and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which, if left unrebutted, may lead to, the inference of guilt. Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case is neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage. So, the Court will not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at that stage.

6. In view of the express allegations in the F.I.R., nomination of the petitioner as an accused and the specific role attributed to him coupled with motive, recovery of empties from the spot, I am of the view that apparently no case for grant of bail has been made out and the Courts below have rightly declined bail to the petitioner. Omer Khan and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2003 PCr.LJ 1110 Peshawar). The application fails which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./145/P Bail refused.