2026 PLP 169 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

The petitioner/accused namely Badar Uddin has filed the instant petition under section 497, Cr.P.C for grant of post arrest bail in criminal case FIR No. 10/2024 for offences under sections 324, 109, P.P.C, 3/5 Explosive Substances Act No. 6 of 1908 registered at Police Station Singul District Ghizer.

2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the FIR are that the complainant namely Faisal Khan son of Adil Khan had submitted a written complaint before the SHO P.S Singul District Ghizer stating therein that he is of the opinion that the present petitioner/accused along with his co-accused have attempted to commit murder of complainant Faisal Khan son of Adil Shah by opening fires from outside of house of the complainant and one bullet of fire hit the complainant.

3. After receipt of the complaint the SHO concerned has registered the FIR bearing No. 10/2024 and started investigation of the case. The concerned SHO arrested the present petitioner/accused. After completion of formal investigation got committed the present petitioner/accused to judicial lock-up at Gahkuch Ghizer.

4. The present petitioner/accused had filed an application before the learned vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit for grant of post arrest bail. The learned vacations Sessions Judge, Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the bail petition filed by the present petitioner/accused, vide order dated 30-12-2024 passed in B.A No. 89/2024. Hence, the instant bail petition before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ accused contended that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention by the police in collusion with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the instant FIR against the petitioner is fake, false, self-made and fabricated. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that there is six hours unexplained delay in lodging of FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that no recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the present petitioner/ accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that co-accused namely Hazrat Khan has been released on bail by this Court and another nominated accused Abdul Razaq and Abdul Din and Jafar Ullah have been discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that the case of the present petitioner/ accused is required further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further submitted that the prosecution has failed to connect the present petitioner/accused with the alleged offence and there is no any independent ocular evidence record against petitioner/accused and serious doubts exist in the available on the the present case, hence the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon reported judgment of this Court 2025 MLD 173.

6. On the other hand, the learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the present accused/ petitioner is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that offence under sections 324,109, P.P.C and 3/5 Explosive Substance Act, are not bailable and falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned DAG further submitted that the occurrence has taken place at night therefore, the complainant could not approached police station soon after the occurrence as his life was endanger. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner/accused has admitted his presence at the place of occurrence with other co-accused in his statement recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C during investigation of the case. The learned DAG and learned counsel for thecomplainant relied on judgments 2017 MLD 386, 2020 SCMR 1486.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have minutely gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. From perusal of record it transpires the complainant has nominated the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused on the basis of suspicion claiming that he had old enmity with the co-accused of the present petitioner namely Abdul Razaq, Abdul Din Jaffar Ullah, Nazir Hussain and the present petitioner and his father are relative of the above named accused, therefore, the present petitioner and his co-accused might have opened fire on him. No any eye-witness or the complainant himself witnessed/ seen the accused/ petitioner and his co-accused at the place of occurrence. No specific role has been attributed to the accused/ petitioner in the FIR and no any incriminating material/ weapon of offence has been recovered from the present petitioner/ accused by the police during investigation of the case. The petitioner / accused is confined in judicial custody since the day of his arrest and police has submitted challan against him, in the Court of competent jurisdiction hence, the petitioner is not required for further investigation, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case against the petitioner/ accused requires further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

9. Moreover, three other nominated co-accused of the petitioner/ accused namely Abdul Razaq, Abdul Din and Jaffar Ullah have been discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C by the police. One co-accused namely Hazrat Khan has been released on bail by this Court vide bail order dated 22-08-2024, hence, rule of consistency applies to the case of the present petitioner/ accused and he is entitled for concession of post arrest bail.

10. In the light of above circumstances, this bail petition is allowed. Consequently the petitioner/accused is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of rupees 300,000/- with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall ensure that sureties are local and men of means.

11. The observations made in this order regarding factual aspects of case are tentative in nature. The learned Trial Court shall adjudicate the case strictly on its merits based solely on the evidence without being influenced by these observations. File. JK/4/GB Petition allowed.