' Muhammad Zaman, petitioner, stands involved in the F.I.R. No.8 dated 3-1-2004 registered under sections 302/109, P.P.C. At Police Station, Naurang, District Lakki Marwat on the allegation of having, on 3-4-2004 at 13-15 hours in Bazar Naurang, shot dead Muhammad Aslam, brother of Hamiduilah complainant.
2. After having failed to obtain the relief of bail from the forums below vide orders dated 9-3-2004 and 9-4-2004, the petitioner has approached this Court with a similar prayer and in support of bail application, Mr. Sultan Shehryar Khan Marwat, Advocate for the petitioner contended that though the crime in question is alleged to have taken place in the Bazar of Naurang in a broad day light but no-one from \amongst the independent quarter has come forward to support the prosecution story; that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version in material details; that the prosecution case stands falsified by the fact that the local police has exonerated the co- accused Samiullah from the charge and had released him under the provisions of section 169, Cr.P.C. And that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under section 497, Cr.P.C. And further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.
3. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch, Advocate for the complainant opposed the bail and maintained that the petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. And that the role of co-accused released under section 169, Cr.P.C. Is distinguishable from the role attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he has rightly been refused the concession of bail.
4. An accused would only be entitled to the discretionary relief ofbail when on the tentative assessm ent of materials brought before it, the Court reaches the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence, or an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, and in absence of any such finding to this effect the Court is debarred to hold that the case is of further inquiry entitling the accused to bail within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. No doubt the deeper' appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not the requirement of law pertaining to bail matters but nevertheless the fact remains that cases regarding bail are not and cannot be decided in vacuum.
The Court has to form a view by assessing the evidence on record tentatively.
5. Be that as it may, without highlighting merits of the case, I findthat the petitioner stands directly involved in the promptly lodged report for the commission of offence and a specific role of firing has been attributed to him which resulted in the death of Muhammad Aslam, deceased. He was arrested red-handedly when making an attempt to make good his escape. The medical evidence and witnesses of the spot fully support the charge and as such no case for grant of bail has been made out. The bail application fails which is hereby rejected. However, the prosecution is directed to submit challan against the petitioner in Court within one month and the learned trial Court shall conclude the case as expeditiously as possible.