2018 PLP 118 (YLRN)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioners, who are real brothers, have been booked for the offence under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 96/2016 dated 06.10.2016 registered at Police Station City Gilgit.

2. The precise facts of the case as reflected in the FIR are given below:-- Precisely, the facts of the case as reflected in the FIR are that on 06-01-2016 complainant namely Sahekir ur Rahman has filed an application to the SHO Police Station of City stating that he is running a general store near RCC bridge Konodass. On the day of occurrence complainant, his elder brother namely Hafiz-ur-Rahman and his cousin namely Aziz-ur-Rahman went towards their home after closing their shops and when they reached near Madina hotel the complainant saw the accused Naeem Ullah and Inam Ullah present there. Complainant went ahead and in the meantime complainant heard some voice of hue and cry and he saw that the accused Naeem Ullah had a knife (Churri) in his hand attacked on complainant's brother Hafiz ur Rahman while accused Inam Ullah attacked with knife (Churri) on his cousin. On seeing this complainant went towards them, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Complainant took both the injured to hospital and in the hospital victim/injured Hafiz-ur-Rahman has died due to injuries. Motive behind the occurrence is that prior to the occurrence some quarrel had happened between the accused and his cousin on some business matters. After receiving the application the SHO Police Station City Gilgit had got registered the FIR in hand and arrested the accused and after completion of formal investigation the SHO had committed the accused/petitioners to judicial lockup.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case against the petitioners is motivated one and they have falsely been involved in the case on the instigation of some ill wishers. The offence mentioned in the FIR are not attracted and there is no independent evidence to connect the petitioners with the crime nor any recovery has been effected from the petitioners, which makes their participation in the occurrence doubtful and their case is one of the further inquiry. Moreover the petitioner Inam Ullah caused simple injuries to injured Aziz ur Rahman on non vital parts of his body, thus his case is one of the further inquiry.

4. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G., refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that it was a day light occurrence, and the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the FIR. The learned Dy.A.G., further contended that recoveries from the petitioners/accused were effected on their pointation and all the P.Ws including the injured Aziz-ur-Rahman have charge the petitioners/ accused for commission of offence. The learned Dy.A.G, further contended that the offence is heinous one and entails capital punishment, which disentitles the petitioners for the grant of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perused the record of the case with care.

6. The occurrence took place at 1830 hours on 06.10.2016 and the report was immediately lodged at 1900 hours by an alleged eye-witness namely Shakir-ur-Rahman and both the accused are directly charged in the FIR. Weapons of offence have been recovered from the petitioners on their pointation. One of the injured namely Hafiz-ur-Rahman died while on the way to hospital, while the other injured namely Aziz-ur-Rahman sustained injuries which have been declared simple by the medical officer.

7. From the tentative assessment of the FIR, statements of P.Ws recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C, medical evidence and recovery of crime weapons prima facie connect the petitioner Naeem Ullah with the commission of offence as deceased Hafiz ur Rahman died because of the injuries sustained at the hands of accused Naeem Ullah. Weapon of offence was also recovered on his pointation. However the case of accused/petitioner Inam Ullah is on different footing. He is charged for causing injuries on the person of Aziz ur Rahman. These injuries were found simple by the medical officer. As evident from the contents of medico legal report the injuries to Aziz ur Rahman have been caused on non vital part of the body. His intention to kill will be determined at the time of trial after recording of some evidence by the trial Court. Hence petitioner/accused Inam Ullah is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees five lac only) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, while bail up to the extent of petitioner/accused Naeem Ullah is refused.

8. My observations are tentative in nature and will not be relevant for any proceeding before the trial Court and trial Court may form his own independent opinion after recording of prosecution evidence.

9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. JK/158/GB Order accordingly.