2004 PLP 1504 (MLD)

Shortly narrated the facts of the case are that on 1‑6‑2001 at 2200 hours Saifullah Khan, complainant, lodged a report to the effect that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith his sons Farooq, Shafqatullah and Nazirullah was present in their house when at about 2130 hours came out of the house on hearing the report of firing. On coming out of the house, they saw Baidullah, Azizullah, Jamil and another Jamil son of. Akbar Ali duly armed with Kalashnikovs standing with the house of Baidullah Jan. Complainant asked Baidullah Jan as to why they have fired when in the meanwhile, all the persons started firing at them. As a result of firing made by the accused, Shafqatullah son of the complainant got hit. The injured being to critical condition, was referred to DHQ Hospital, Bannu where he succumbed to the injuries and expired on 2‑6‑2001 and section of law was altered to 302, P.P.C.

2. On arrest, respondent applied for bail before Judicial Magistrate, Lakki Marwat who rejected the same vide order dated 4‑3‑2003. However, he was admitted to bail by learned Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat vide his order dated 1‑4‑2003. Feeling aggrieved, Saifullah Khan complainant has filed instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, seeking cancellation of bail thus granted to respondent as per impugned order.

3. Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch, Advocate for the petitioner contended that though the occurrence had taken place at night time, yet the accused were identified in the light of electric bulb; that recovery of empties from the place of respondent fully connects him with the commission of crime and that having remained fugitive from law, respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail.

4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, learned Deputy Advocate‑General for the State assisted by Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate for the respondent supported the impugned order maintaining that more than one persons being charged in the report with equal role, it was rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge that case of the respondent needed further inquiry.

5. There is no allegation in the application or in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has misused the: concession of bail by making some efforts to hamper investigation or to tamper with evidence or that he has used violence against the prosecution witnesses. The grounds given by learned Sessions Judge in granting bail to the respondent are convincing and cogent. The same are neither fanciful, arbitrary or perverse warranting interference. Moreover, there are no extraordinary circumstances compelling this Court to cancel the bail granted by the competent Court of law.

6. For the above reason, this application being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./158/P Application dismissed.