1990 PLP 343 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J: ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of Baluchistan High Court dated 1‑2‑‑1989 dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for release on bail pending trial of case against him under section 302/353, P.P.C. The facts, according to prosecution, briefly stated are that on 21‑9‑19137 petitioner caused the murder of Najeebullah Khan, Traffic Sergeant while he was discharging his official duties in Quetta Town. Petitioner was apprehended on the spot, and six persons allegedly witnessed the occurrence. Petitioner's plea in defence is that he acted in self‑defence, and it is on this ground that he prayed for release on bail. The request was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the learned Judge in the High Court rejected it for the reasons that may be stated in his own words as under: "It may be pertinent to observe that all the 6 witnesses have supported the version of the prosecution that deceased was killed by applicant Muhammad Yakub. The trend of the cross‑examination of the above- said 6 witnesses shows that applicant/accused had committed the murder but it was stated by him that he acted in self‑defence. The record indicates that no lethal weapon was in hand of the deceased at that time. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any act was committed by the deceased which warranted his killing. These are the facts which need thorough probe. It would be premature if this Court enters upon such assessment of evidence at this stage which certainly would pre‑empt on duties and functions of trial Court. There is evidence on record connecting the applicant/accused with the commission of the murder, hence I am not inclined to allow him on bail at this stage." At the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal today yearned counsel for the petitioner however stated that petitioner does not wish to press this petition if it is clarified by this Court that nothing observed by the learned Judge in the High Court is to affect the merits of the case at the trial, and the learned trial Court should deal with the case and pass the judgment in accordance with the law, irrespective of the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court in the impugned order. We do not see how petitioner should have any fears with regard to the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court as these are, even otherwise, not meant to affect the merits of the case at the trial. We find that the learned Judge in the High Court was himself conscious of this fact and it was for this reason that he observed that "it would be premature if this Court enters upon such assessment of evidence at this stage which certainly would pre‑empt on duties and functions of trial Court". In the circumstances the clarification sought for from this Court is not necessary at all. Since the petition has not been pressed, it is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. M.A.K./M‑1026/S Petition dismissed.