1996 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Haq Nawaz for Petitioners. Hafizur Rehman, District Attorney for the State. Altaf Hussain for the Complainant. According to the first information report, Sultan Asghar, resident of Amphary, who is serving as F.C. in Police Department, on 7‑9‑1994 after offering his evening prayer in the mosque at about 6‑45 p.m. he heard the report of fire shots in quick succession. On hearing the report of fire shots, he rushed towards that direction and when he reached the road near the shop of Ali Haider, he saw few persons having gathered there and also found his sister's son namely Ijaz Hussain lying injured in a pool of blood. Saghir Ahmad, Jehangir Shah arid Mujahid Hussain, who were present at the scene of occurrence, informed him that they have seen Chiragh-ud Din son of Nabi, Shah Farman son of Muhammad Zaman and Imtiaz son of Ghulam Muhammad Master duly armed decamping from the scene of occurrence. The informant was also told by the aforesaid P.Ws. that‑the deceased Ijaz Hussain was sitting alongwith Shahid Hussain and Sadaqat Hussain on a bench outside the shop of Ali Haider at the relevant time. The lodger of the F.I.R. took the casualty to the hospital, where he breathed his last.

2. Motive for the offence is that one Ghulam Muhammad Master, father of Imtiaz, brother of Chiragh‑ud‑Din and uncle of Shah Farman, accused petitioners was done to death about two years ago, for which one Bilal a close relative of the deceased and others were charged.

3. The alleged incident took place on 7‑9‑1994 at 6-45 p.m. and the report was lodged by Sultan Asghar, maternal‑uncle of the deceased Ijaz Hussain, at 7‑30 p.m. at Police Station Gilgit the same night. The maker of the first information report is not an eye‑witness to the present incident. Likewise, Saghir Ahmad, Jehangir Shah and Mujahid Hussain P.Ws. whose names figure in the F.I.R. are not eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They have only seen the accused petitioners fleeing away towards Kashmiri Mohalla. It is also pertinent to note that Shahid Hussain and Sadaqat Hussain, according to the F.I.R., were sitting on a bench with Ijaz Hussain, deceased at the relevant time, but no arguments were addressed by either side, regarding their presence at the time of occurrence. Shahid Hussain and Sadaqat Hussain, in their statements under section 161 before the police, have given a different version than the one advanced by Sultan Asghar, in his first information report.

4. Apart from this the presence of Shah Farman and Imtiaz accused petitioners is not shown in the site plan. Only three empty shells of klashnikov were recovered by the Investigating Officer, during the spot inspection and an unlicensed 'klashnikov was also recovered on the same night by the Investigating Officer from Chiragh-ud Din, accused‑petitioner. The gun in question as well as the three empties per prosecution version have been sent to the Ballistic Expert for examination and report. No doubt, an unlicensed .30 bore pistol has also been recovered from Shah Farman, accused‑petitioner, but no empty shell. of .30 bore is recovered from the vicinity of spot. So far, Imtiaz accused‑petitioner is concerned, nothing has been recovered from him.

5. From the inquest report, it is evident that the deceased was done to death with. a single shot. From the site plan, it appears that Chiragh-ud Din accused‑petitioner was of Point No. 1 on a bank of maize field, from where allegedly the fatal shot was fired at the deceased.

6. Jehangir Shah P.W. in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. has stated that he would be able to identify the co‑confederates of Chiragh-ud Din, if they are produced before him, but strangely enough no identification parade has been arranged by the Investigating Agency, in this respect.

7. According to the school leaving certificate, the age of Shah Farman accused‑petitioner comes to 13 years, 8 months and 25 days. He is of a tender age. So far, Shah Farman and Imtiaz, accused‑petitioners are concerned, their case is an arguable one for the purposes of bail, I, therefore, without going deep into the merits of the case, deem it fit and proper in the interest of justice, to allow bail to them, provided they furnish bail bonds in a sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Gilgit.

8. The case of accused‑petitioner Chiraghud Din stands on different footing. He is directly charged in the F.I.R. and an unlicensed klashnikov has also been recovered from him,' on the very night of occurrence by the police. The three empties recovered from the spot alongwith the klashnikov in question have been sent to the Arms Expert for examination and report. The opinion of Arms Expert in this behalf, is still awaited. Chiraghud Din accused‑petitioner, from the record as it stands, prima facie, is connected with the alleged crime in question. His prayer for bail, at this stage, stands rejected. However, on the receipt of the opinion of Arms Expert, accused Chiraghud Din will be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail before the trial Court, if he so desires. N.H.Q./I/G Order accordingly.