1. Akthar Zaman petitioner alongwith his brothers, Rabnawaz and Lalbat Khan (since acquitted) stands involved in case FIR No, 217 dated 26.6.1998 registered under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station, Cantt. Kohat. The petitioner is accused of having, on 26.6.1998 at 1900 hours near the garden of Rabnawaz acquitted co-accused, committed murder of his co-villager Said Muhammad, by firing.
2. The petitioner submitted applications before Senior Civil Judge and Addy. Sessions Judge, Kohat for bail which were rejected vide orders dated 20.4.2005 and 28.5.2005 respectively. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer and in support of the bail application Mr. Peer Bakhsh Mehtab, Advocate, for the petitioner contended that except the bare allegations in the FIR there is nothing incriminating on the file to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; that in view of the acquittal of co-accused, a case for grant of bail has been made out and that the petitioner did not remain at large and due to fear of police, did not surrender.' To augment the contentions, he placed reliance on the State v. Malik Mukhtiar Ahmad Awan 1991 SCM R 322, Zulfiqar and others vs. State and ten others 1991 SCM R 326,, Muhammad Jehangir v. Kala Khan and another 2004 P.Cr.L.J. 1843 SC (AJ&K) and Payoo Khan and another v. State and another 2004 P.Cr.L.J. 869 Peshawar.
3. Contrarily, Syed Muhammad Shakeel, Advocate, for the State assisted by Mr. Muhammad Amin Lachi, Advocate, for the complainant, while refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner; supported the impugned orders and maintained that the petitioner stands directly charged in the promptly lodged report for the commission of crime; that a specific role of firing resulting into the murder of Said Muhammad deceased has been attributed to the petitioner and that noticeable abscondence of the petitioner stands in his way and disentitles him for the concession of bail. To support the pleas, reliance was placed on Sher All alias Shery petitioner v.
4. State 1998 SCM R 190, Sajjad Ahmad v. State PLD 1992 Peshawar 74 and Zarif Khan v. State 2005 P.Cr.L.J. 330 Peshawar.
5. To consider the bail matter of an accused person involved in a non-bail offence, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall not be released on bail unless case is covered by any of the provisions in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. If it appears to the Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, he accused shall be released on bail under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. It would be seen that in matters concerning bail, the exercise carried out by the Court is a preliminary one and is restricted to a tentative sifting of the evidence on record opposed to an elaborate sifting of the case. The Court has only to see whether the accused was connected with the commission of crime or not. For that purpose, only tentative assessment of evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation is not called for. It is the mind of the Court which is to be satisfied that the case under its consideration is fit case or not for grant of bail.
7. Applying the above principle to the case in hand, it would be seen that the alleged incident is one of broad day light. The crime in question having taken place on -26.6.1998 at 1900 hours, the matter was reported to the police the same day at 1945 hours by the victim himself. The petitioner went into hiding and it was on 23.3.2003 when he was arrested from Hangu. The long abscondence of the petitioner has created a barrier in his way and disentitles him for the relief of bail. No doubt, it is true that co-accused have been acquitted in this case but it is equally true that have been assigned a different role, qua role attributed to the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, the application in hand fails which is hereby dismissed and bail is refused.
9. However, learned trial Judge shall conclude the trial as expeditious as possible, not exceeding six months.
10. Before parting with this , order I would like to add that the observations made above are tentative in nature and shall not influence the mind of the learned Judge at the time of conducting trial.