2021 PLP 21 (YLRN)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant bail petition, the petitioners/ accused namely Fazal Haq and Muhammad Hanif sons of Abdul Latif seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.02/2019 dated 07-01-2019 registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City, Gilgit.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners/accused had earlier filed Bail Petition bearing No.63 of 2019 in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gilgit, which was dismissed by the learned trial court, vide order dated 02-8-2019. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the said order of the learned trial court, the petitioners have come to this court for concession of bail.

3. Brief facts of prosecution case are that on 07-01-2019 at 11:30 a.m. the complainant and his deceased brother Shah Alam along with their companions namely Ehsan and Siraj Khan residents of Boner Dass were proceedings towards Gilgit Bazar from Konodass in connection with some private affairs, when they reached at old suspension bridge Konodass. In the meanwhile, the accused/ petitioners came from Gilgit City side. Petitioner/accused namely Muhammad Hanif interpreted/ stopped the deceased Shah Alam on the Konodaas suspension bridge, whereas the accused /petitioner Fazal Haq opened fires on the deceased with intention to kill him. After committing of murder of the deceased both the accused/petitioners decamped/ fled-away towards Pull Road Gilgit. The complainant and his above named companions rushed towards the deceased who was fallen down on the suspension bridge and found that the deceased was succumbed to his injuries. Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be old enmity between the parties.

4. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press application to the extent of petitioner/accused namely Fazal Haq during his arguments.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners / accused contended that the petitioner/accused namely Muhammad Hanif is innocent as no specific role has been attributed to him and no weapon of offence has been recovered from the present petitioner namely Muhammad Hanif. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that presence of the petitioners/accused at the place of occurrence has not been shown/mentioned in the site plan and eye-witnesses are closely related to the complainant party. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the accused namely Fazal Haq was arrested by Sultan Amin and Mohammad Qasin F. Cs and they have not uttered a single word regarding presence of the petitioner/accused namely Muhammad Hanif at the place of occurrence in their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C, thus case to the extent of petitioner /accused namely Muhammad Hanif requires further inquiry and he is entitled for concession of bail.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that accused/petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of intercepting/stopping the deceased and facilitating the principal accused namely Fazal Haq at the place of occurrence . The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General further argued that eye-witnesses have witnessed the occurrence as it was daylight occurrence. The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General further argued that offence under section 302, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Concluding their arguments the learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General argued that immediately after the occurrence the petitioner/accused namely Muhammad Hanif had absconded and he remained fugitive from law for about 4 months , therefore, the absconded petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. Perusal of record it transpires that both the accused/petitioners are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific/overt act. Offence under section 302, P.P.C. falls with the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and eye-witnesses have witnessed the occurrence. Both the parties being from same locality /region were known each other and there is no question of inadvertent/mistaken identity. The petitioner/accused Muhammad Hanif had absconded immediately after the occurrence and he remained fugitive from law for about four months which also could be treated as very important piece of evidence against the petitioner/accused as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court in case reported in PLD 1985 SC

402. Moreover, motive behind the occurrence has been disclosed in the FIR.

9. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and from tentative assessment of material collected by the prosecution during investigation it appears that the petitioners are prima facie connected with alleged offence, therefore, both the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.

10. For what has been discussed above, the petitioners have not been able to make out the case for grant of bail, hence, this bail being meritless is hereby dismissed. File. SA/145/GB Bail declined.