2002 PLP 905 (MLD)

Raza Khan Mahmand for the State. Date of hearing: 10th May, 2001. Having involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No.118 dated sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Shabqadat, District Charsadda the accused‑petitioner applied to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda for his release on bail, but his application was dismissed vide order, dated 26‑1‑2001. Now the petitioner has moved this Court for his release on bail.

2. Said. Shah, complainant reported that he alongwith his son Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) Abdullah and other inmates of house were present in their house. In the meanwhile some altercation took place between Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) son of complainant and Yousaf Shah, his brother (petitioner), Shabbir Ahmad and Zubair Ahmad, sons of Yousaf Shah over the construction of a wall. Yousaf Shah (petitioner) and his sons fired at Muhammad Nawaz with their kalashnikovs with which he was hit, and later on died. However, the complainant and other inmates escaped unhurt. The occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by Abdullah and other inmates of house. Motive for the offence is dispute over the construction of wall.

3. Messrs Nek Nawaz Khan and Javed A. Khan, Advocates the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that petitioner is an old and infirm person having poor health, physique and weak eyesight, therefore, he could not fire at the deceased with kalashnikov. He has been involved in case being head of the family. The deceased was hit by single shot and three persons have been implicated which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case.

4. On the other hand Mr. 7uhammad Aman Khan the learned counsel representing the. complainant and Raza Khan Mahmand, appearing for the State while opposing the grant of bail argued that the accused‑petitioner shared common intention with the other co‑accused, who are still at large. As per identity card the age of the accused is 66 years and he is not infirm, therefore, mere old age is no ground for grant of bail.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for t e parties and perused the record.

6. This Court vide order, dated 9‑4‑2001 had summoned the accused‑petitioner. He was produced today in Court. From his appearance, this Court observed that the accused‑petitioner is not only an old man of more than 70 years of age, but is also infirm and of unsound physique having weak eyesight and his participation in the alleged recurrence and inflicting injury with weapon of offence (kalashnikov) needed specified evidence and material on record. Although no medical certificate is available on record to indicate that he is suffering from any ailment yet old age by itself brings infirmity. We are, therefore, of the view that the accused‑petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Resultantly, we accept the bail application in hand and direct that the accused‑petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each to the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Charsadda who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. N.H.Q./435/P Bail allowed