1979 P Cr (PLP)

5. 497‑Bail of petitioner accused of murder pressed on ground of witnesses connecting petitioner with offence having filed affidavit of their being forced witnesses and of having not witnessed occurrence‑Site plan, however, prepared at instance of such witnesses and question of their becoming forced witnesses yet to be considered at trial Material prima facie connecting petitioner with commission of offence, bail declined, in circumstances.‑[Affidavit]. Muhammad Shafigue Khan Petitioner. Akhtar Munir, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing : 34th October 1978. The accused petitioner seeks bail in a case under section 302, P. P. C. His bail application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has proved infructuous. The allegation against the accused petitioner is that he alongwith one Matiullah brought the dead body of the deceased to his house in village Gujrat. The accused petitioner told his brother Khan Murad that the deceased suffered his death accidentally with his own shot‑gun. Khan Murad made a report at police station charging none. On the same day, however, the police examined Gul Roshan and Rashid of Tora Bando where the deceased had met his death. Both these persons charged the accused/ petitioner for murdering the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner contended that the said two persons filed affidavits before the Magistrate to this effect that they were forced to become witnesses against the accused/petitioner having killed the deceased, although they have not witnessed the occurrence. This contention had also been raised before the learned Sessions Judge and he repelled it. The witnesses have once charged the accused/petitioner and therefore for the present the same cannot be brushed aside, for it would, as the learned Sessions Judge has pertinently remarked, tantamount to the evaluation of the evidence. The site‑plan has been prepared at the instance of these two witnesses in which they have shown their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. The question whether Gul Roshan and Rashid were forced to give evidence against the accused or the accused party persuaded them to resile from what they have stated against the accused cannot be looked into at this stage in the circumstances of this case. It wilt have to be considered at the trial, in case these two persons decline to give evidence against the accused. In my view, for the present the statements given by Gul Roshan and Rashid is a sufficient material to show that prima facie the accused/petitioner is connected with the crime and hence not entitled to bail. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.