2025 PLP 267 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

The instant bail petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused namely Akhlaq Ahmed under section 497, Cr.P.C for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No. 10/2024 registered under sections 302/34, 202, P.P.C. at Police Station Pari Banglah District Gilgit.

2. Prior to filing the instant bail petition, the petitioner/ accused had filed bail petition before the learned trial Court which was dismissed, vide bail order dated 18.09.2024 passed in B.A No. 246/2024, hence this bail petition before this Court.

3. Briefly facts as narrated in the FIR necessary for disposal of the instant bail petition are that on 20.06.2024 at about 10.00 pm, the petitioner/accused along with his other co-accused had committed murder of one Rizwan Ullah son of Safdar Shah by opening fire with fire arm at their house situated at Pari Banglah. After committing murder of the above named deceased, the present petitioner and his co-accused had buried the dead body of the deceased in their field which was recovered by the police after three days of the occurrence on the pointation of the co-accused of the present petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the allegation against the petitioner/accused is false, concocted and result of afterthought as the complainant has reported the matter to the local police after three days of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that although the petitioner/ accused has directly been nominated in the FIR by the complainant, but no specific role has been attributed to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the occurrence was taken place at night and there is no eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused further argued that all the PWs have not uttered a single word against the present petitioner/accused in their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner/accused by the police during investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that prima facie there is no evidence against the petitioner/accused in the instant case and the only allegation against the petitioner is concealment of crime, which is baseless and concocted. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the petitioner/ accused is behind the bar since his arrest and his guilt will be determined after recording evidence by the trial Court, hence the detention of the petitioner/accused for a long time in jail would serve no useful purpose as such the petitioner/accused may be released on bail. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied upon reported judgments of superior Courts reported as 2024 PCr.LJ 1305 and 2021 YLR 347.

5. Conversely, the learned Dy. Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the accused/ petitioner is involved in murder of an innocent person and his involvement has been established by the PWs during investigation of the case. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that the occurrence is a pre-planned and the present petitioner/accused is equally involved in the instant case. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that both the parties as well as PWs belong to same locality and both the parties and PWs were known to each other, therefore, there is no possibility of false implication or misidentification. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that the there is no mala fide on the part of prosecution as the PWs in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C have established the presence of the petitioner/accused at the place of occurrence with specific role. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contended that the dead body of the deceased has been recovered after three days of the occurrence from the field of the accused/petitioner, hence the petitioner and his co-accused has committed murder of the deceased.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the available record of the case.

7. Perusal of record transpires that although the present petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the FIR but no any specific role has been attributed to the accused/ petitioner in the occurrence. No any incriminating article/ material has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner/accused so far. Father of the present petitioner/accused who is also co-accused in the instant case has not stated a single word against him in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C, rather father of accused/petitioner namely Daulat Shah has stated that his another son/accused namely Israr Ahmad has committed murder of deceased Rizwan Ullah by opening fire with .30 bore pistol. The weapon of offence i.e. .30 bore pistol and dead body of the deceased were recovered on the pointation of the co-accused Israr Ahmad. Accordingly, another criminal case under section 13 Arms ordinance 20 of 1965 has been registered against accused Israr Ahmad.

8. From tentative assessment of material collected by the police during investigation of the case it appears that the police has failed to collect any cogent / reliable evidence against the present petitioner/accused. Perhaps the petitioner has been involved in the instant case for the offence under section 202, P.P.C. and punishment prescribed for the offence under section 202, P.P.C. is six months imprisonment, as such, the aforesaid offence /section does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, hence, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail.

9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted. Consequently, the petitioner/ accused is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(five lac) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

10. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that observations made herein above are tentative in nature. The learned trial Court shall be not influence from the aforesaid observations and shall decide the matter on merit in accordance with law/evidence to be produced by the prosecution. File JK/36/GB Bail granted.