1999 PLP 2719 (YLR)

The petitioners were involved in a case registered under section 302/109/ 148/149, P.P.C., alongwith others. During the occurrence two persons namely Pehlwan and Abdullah were killed. Both of them were brothers. The occurrence had two parts committed by all the accused simultaneously. In the first part, Pehlwan was murdered and in the second part, in the same series, Abdullah was murdered. Both the petitioners while armed with .12 bore guns each had fired at Abdullah deceased thereby causing his murder.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence of the eye‑witnesses is incredible as their presence at the spot is doubtful. In this respect, it is submitted that after the murder of Pehlwan when the petitioners/accused had followed Abdullah to murder him, the witnesses should have not ordinarily followed them to see other part of the occurrence. Had they been present there, then would have not spared, as such, their presence is alleged to be improbable. Secondly, it is contended that though the murder of Pehlwan had taken place in the house and a lantern was shown burning but the murder of Abdullah took place outside in an open place during the dark night and, therefore, the identity of the assailants would be doubtful. Thirdly, the story appears to be very improbable because the deceased Abdullah was firstly held in ' Japha' and after he had fallen down was fired at by the present petitioners. The story of ' Japha' and subsequent firing allegedly appears to be inconsistent as why the victim would have been held in ' Japha' if he was to be killed by firing. Lastly, it is contended that the widow of Abdullah deceased namely Bashiran Bibi named five other persons than the present petitioners to have committed the murder of her husband. In this respect, it is submitted that she filed a private complaint involving those five persons namely Jehangir son of Sher, Jehangir son of Hamid, Ahmad Yar son of Sultan, Barkat son of Shamma and Rajab Ali alias Dona to have committed the murder of Abdullah i.e., her husband and a report under section 202, Cr.P.C., has been received in which all the aforesaid persons have been linked with the murder. As such, it was alleged that there been two versions, the petitioners have a case of further enquiry.

3. The bail was opposed from the prosecution side on the ground that there was a motive for the occurrence based on the previous enmity between the parties. The petitioners' application for bail was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order, dated 8‑6‑1998 and since no fresh ground has arisen, therefore, the petitioners have not been able to make a case for bail; that the complaint was an afterthought as the same was filed after four months; and that both the petitioners having been named in the F.I.R. and assigned a specific role in firing at the deceased Abdullah, had no case for bail. Lastly, it is contended that the challan has been sent to the Court for trial where the date of hearing is fixed as 3‑5‑1999.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that both the petitioners applied for bail which was dismissed as aforesaid by this Court. There is no fresh ground for re‑consideration except that a complaint has been filed against another set of accused which is yet at enquiry stage. The eye‑witnesses have clearly linked the petitioners to have killed the deceased Abdullah and there is nothing at this stage to show that they are not prima facie guilty of the offence of murder as stated in the F.I.R. The petition being meritless is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑111/L Bail refused.