' Said Muhammad Khan petitioner has moved instant application for bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No.105 registered on 21-9-2003 under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Basia Khel, District Bannu.
2. The prosecution story in brief is, that on the day of occurrence i.e. 21-9-2003 at about 9-30 a.m.
Complainant Qadir Khan and his son Niaz Khan (deceased) were present in the shop of Hafizullah electrician in Adda Sikandarkhel, Bannu, in connection with the repair of pedestal fan, when in the meanwhile, Said Khan petitioner and his son Humayun, entered into the shop of Hafizullah. The petitioner fired at Niaz Khan with his pistol. The victim was hit and fell on the ground. Humayun also followed suit and fired at the victim with his kalashnikov. After accomplishing the mission, both the accused bolted away firing in the air. The victim succumbed to the injuries and expired in the hospital. Complainant and his brother Saddar Khan were stated to have witnessed the occurrence.
Explaining the motive, it was stated that Shoaib, son of the petitioner, was working with the deceased as apprentice. Deceased had given beating to Shoaib, on account of which the petitioner was nourishing grudge against him and looking for an opportunity take revenge.
3. The petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before Judicial Magistrate, Bannu which was turned down vide order dated 10-11-2003. The application of the petitioner was also rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu through his order dated 4-12-2003.
4. Messrs Khawaja Nawaz Khan and Gauhar Zaman Kundi; Advocates for the petitioner, in support of the bail application, submitted that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the guilt and that version of prosecution as contained in F.I.R. Is not in harmony with the site-plan and medical report. Additionally they urged that a number of independent, impartial and respectable persons of Kot Adil have sworn affidavits to the effect thatthe petitioner was with them at the time of alleged occurrence and was busy alongwith other arbitrators to settle a private dispute in respect of immovable property to add vigor to the submissions, he placed reliance on Mazhar Mehmood v. Basit and another (1997 SCM R 915) and The State v. Shandi Gul (1990 SCM R 323).
5. Conversely, Mr. Shaukat Hayat Khakwani, learned Deputy Advocate-General Assisted by Mr. Noor Raza Ali Khan, Advocate for the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to connect the neck of the petitioner with the guilt and the orders refusing bail to the petitioner did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Reliance was placed on Liaqat Ali v. The State (PLD -1994 SC 172), Nasir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 347), Khial Gul and another v. The State and another (2002 PCr.LJ 1054 of Peshawar) and Safirullah v. The State and another (2003 PCr.L.E 1691 Peshawar).
6. I have heard the arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the material on record.
7. Before releasing the accused on bail, the Court is required to apply its mind keeping in view the provisions contained in subsections (1) and (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., in its totality and the sine qua non for releasing an accused on bail is that the Court should come to the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed a non-bailable offence as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court to do justice, keeping in view the particular facts of each case. The bail in the case of commission of a non-bailable offence and particularly falling in the prohibitory clause in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.Is not to be granted as a matter of course, with the simple sentence that it is a case of further inquiry and without keeping in view the entire provisions Of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. It is settled principle of law that at bail granting stage the material available on record is to be sifted through in order to establish whether prima facie the petitioner before the Court can be connected with the crime in question, and hence, no detailed inquiry is to be made by the Court.
9. In this case, the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged report for the commission of crime and a specific role of firing has been attributed to him. The medical evidence, recoveries and witnesses of the spot fully support the charge. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner touch the merits of the case and cannot be gone into at the stage of bail. The application is dismissed and bail isrefused. However, the learned trial Court shall conclude the case as expeditiously as possible.
10. Any observation made above is purely tentative and shall not affect the merits of the trial.