2018 PLP 103 (YLRN)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner has been booked for the offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.65/2017 registered at Police Station city Gilgit on 14.06.2017 on a written application of complainant Muhammad Sharif son of Daulat Nazar, resident of Naltar Bala, District Gilgit.

2. The gist of the accusation which the FIR is containing have been mentioned in the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gilgit dated 31.10.2017, which are re-produced as under:-- "Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 14.06.2017 complainant Muhammad Sharif son of Doulat Nazar resident of Nalter Bala at present Basin Paeen Gilgit lodged a complaint to the effect that the complainant is a taxi driver by profession and on the fateful day he was present at Taxi Stand near RCC bridge Konodsas. His brother in law namely Mamtaz was present there with his taxi and he was talking with Karim Khan son of Abdul Aziz resident of Sultanabad and Abdul Wahid son of Mustafa resident of Nalter Bala. In the meantime a Ferozi colour VITZ car came there and two young boys were on board in the said car and asked us that "what are you doing here" and told us to go from here. Complainant replied that there is taxi stand therefore they were not going, on this the two boys came out from the car and used abusive language and threatened us with dire-consequences and attacked us. From the two boys one of them was with beard another was un-beard. The beard boy had knife in his hand. The un-beard boy caught hold namely Mumtaz from his neck while the beard boy stabbed on his neck. Resulting in Mumtaz fell down on the ground and the two boys ran away from the scene of occurrence along with VITZ car."

3. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gilgit, which was declined vide order dated 31.10.2017 and being aggrieved from the said order the petitioner has approached this Court for the concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is not nominated in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from his possession. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and no motive has been shown, which may be a reason for commission of the offence. The learned counsel further contended that there is no worth reliance evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. There is only a statement of complainant, which cannot be taken as a gospel truth. Lastly the learned counsel prays that the case of the present petitioner is a case of further inquiry, which entitles him for concession of bail. The learned counsel relied on 2008 YLR 72, 2008 YLR 1064 and 2002 MLD 52.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that though the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR, but he was arrested on the very day of occurrence along with his co-accused. After arrest of the petitioner an identification parade was conducted in presence of a Magistrate and he was identified by the eye-witnesses, which is a strong piece of evidence. Per learned counsel both the eye-witnesses narrated the occurrence in a natural manner and their statements were recorded on the same day i.e. 14.06.2017, which cannot be dubbed as a false or fabricated. The petitioner as per learned counsel actively took part in the commission of offence and there is more than sufficient evidence against the petitioner, which is sufficient to refuse him concession of bail.

6. The learned Dy.A.G. adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that the post mortem of the deceased also confirms the story of prosecution. The petitioner was driving the car, which was taken into possession by the police on the same day. The learned Dy.A.G. lastly contended that motive is always hidden in the mind of the accused and cannot be made a ground for concession of bail in such like heinous offences.

7. Heard at length and record of the case perused.

8. No doubt, that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR but as per the record made available the petitioner/accused was arrested on the same day of occurrence and the car, which the petitioner was driving at the time of occurrence, was taken into possession. A knife which was blood stained was also recovered from the said car. The petitioner/accused was put to identification test, which was held on 19.04.2017 in presence of a Magistrate. The eye-witnesses identified the petitioner in the identification parade. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and the statements of eye-witnesses coupled with the identification parade shows that the petitioner facilitated his co-accused, who committed the murder of the deceased Mumtaz. The present petitioner held the deceased from his collar, and co-accused stabbed the deceased on his neck and injured him critically, who lost his life after a short while in DHQ Hospital Gilgit.

9. There is sufficient material available with the prosecution to connect him with the alleged offence. The murder has been committed in a wanton manner, which entails the punishment of death/ imprisonment for life and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497 Cr.P.C.

10. As a result of above discussion, the petitioner has no case for grant of bail, which is dismissed accordingly.

11. File be consigned to record. WA/226/GB Bail refused.