2016 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioner, who is involved for the offence of section 302/34, P.P.C., booked through FIR No.86/2014, of Police Station City Chilas, District Diamer, seeks his release on bail through this petition. Previously, petitioner and his co-accused sought similar facility from the court of Sessions Judge Diamer, who, through his order dated 22-4-2015, refused to grant the same. Then Muhammad Afzal, one of the co-accused of petitioner, moved this Court for grant of bail facility, and through order dated 29-5-2015 on Cr. Misc. No.51/2015, the said co-accused was released on bail.

2. Prosecution story of occurrence is that petitioner and his co-accused were seen in a taxi, driven by Muhammad Afzal, one of the co-accused of petitioner, a little while before the occurrence. Allegedly, petitioner and his co-accused took the deceased Rash Khan son of Sher Zaman to a timber depot in Chilas and committed the occurrence. The occurrence is reportedly unseen, and the only evidence against the petitioner and his co-accused is the statements of the PWs, who have seen the deceased with the petitioner and his co-accused, a little while before the occurrence.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the material available on file. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that the occurrence is unseen and even the FIR lodger has not disclosed any motive for the occurrence. The counsel for petitioner is of the opinion that release of Muhammad Afzal, one of the co-accused of petitioner, has demanded that petitioner also be released on bail following the rule of consistency. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the occurrence is of 2 p.m. on 26-11-2014 and has been reported at 2:30 p.m. on the very day of occurrence. Per prosecution story of occurrence, the release of Muhammad Afzal, one of the co-accused of petitioner, is on the ground that he was driver of the taxi in which rest of the accused, including the petitioner took the deceased to the scene of occurrence. Moreover, petition cannot be considered as trial of the case has commenced.

4. It is not disputed that per prosecution story of occurrence, the evidence against petitioner and his co-accused is of last seen of deceased with petitioner and his co-accused. Tentative assessment and perusal of statements of the PWs shows that the prosecution witnesses have seen the deceased with petitioner and his co-accused in the taxi driven by Muhammad Fazal, a little while before the occurrence. Moreover, the role attributed to Muhammad Afzal, one of the co-accused of petitioner, is quite different from the role alleged against petitioner. So, in my opinion, the application and attraction of rule of consistency does not arise as the role of Muhammad Afzal, one of the co-accused of petitioner who already released on bail, is not identical with the role alleged against petitioner and his other co-accused. It is also not disputed that trial of the case has commenced.

5. I, therefore, dismiss this petitioner. File be consigned to record. HBT/151/GB Bail refused.