2012-14 PLP 98 (GBLR)

RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, J.

This appeal was preferred against the order of Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan dated 29-5-2013 which was turned down initially the application for bail was not allowed by the trial Court and bail facility refused vide order dated 26-3-2013. The petitioner is of the view that initially 3 accused namely Shakoor the present petitioner, one Naseer and Jam Gull were implicated. The co-accused Jam Gull was released by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. while accused Naseer was granted bail by the trial Court vide order dated 26-3-2013. The counsel for the petitioner is of the firm view that merits of the case are of the nature which call for further inquiry and the entitlement of bail to the petitioner/accused. Secondly that equal role has been attributed to all the nominated accused, hence the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail on the grounds of consistency, parity and equality. The story put forwarded by the prosecution is full of doubt, improbable and cannot be taken into account. The incident as narrated in the FIR disclosed that it is a night occurrence supplemented by rain, hence the identification of accused is not probable in the dark circumstances with the torch light. The State on the other hand is of the view that the petitioner/accused is directly charged for the commission of offence by fire shot opened by him. The weapon of offence has also been recovered proving that offence has been committed in the manner stated. The statement of eye-witnesses along with the other material placed on record makes a good prima facie case against the petitioner, hence concession of bail cannot be extended to the petitioner/accused. We have given thought to the contentions raised by both the parties and have also perused the record. The FIR No. 50/12 of Police Station City Chilas clearly discloses the presence of the witnesses as well as the direct nomination of the accused, and the separate role played by them. It is observed from the statements of P.W's. that the accused namely Shakoor has been alleged to have opened the fatal fire shot at the deceased and his role in the commission of offence is not at par with the role played by other co-accused because direct charge of the fatal fire shot has been attributed specifically to the present petitioner/accused. The role of the released co-accused is not at par with the present case. Secondly the statement of P.W's. as well as the recovery of other articles has not been constructed after any fatal delay which may raise doubts in the manner in which the occurrence has taken place. It would not be necessary to comment on the other parts of the case and would not be appropriate to go into further details of the case as it would be fatal to the final outcome of the matter. The other discussion and reasons given in the present order may not influence the trial Judge during the proceedings as the circumstances may change after the adducing of the evidence. In view of the above mentioned facts we are of the view that the concession of bail is not granted in favour of the petitioner/accused as there is a prima facie case existing against the petitioner/accused. HBT/56/GB Bail refused.