' Petitioners Ghulam Abbas and Mumtaz sons of Muhammad Ayaz, residents of village Sahi, Tehsil and District D.I. Khan through Cr.M.B. No,350 of 2004 have applied for grant of bail in case bearing F.I.R. No,264, dated 14-7-2004 which stands registered against them and two others at Police Station Saddar, D.I. Khan under sections 302/342/34, P.P.C. On the report of complainant Muhammad Usman, father of Khalil deceased.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the day of occurrence i,e, 13-7-2004 complainant Muhammad Usman was present in his lands and his son Khalil (deceased) was grazing cattle in the adjoining land of Abdul Sattar in the limits of Mouza Mandhra. At about 11-00 hours complainant heard report of fire shots. He went towards his son Khalil and found him lying injured on the ground. Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Abbas sons of Muhammad Ayaz, Samar son of Sona armed with kalashnikovs and Mumtaz son of Muhammad Ayaz armed with 303 bore rifle were found standing near the venue of occurrence. On asking as to why they have killed the deceased.
The accused persons caught hold of the complainant and tied his hands and feet and bolted away from the spot. The victim succumbed to the injuries and expired after some time. The cattle of the deceased reached home at Digarvela. Qadeer, son of the complainant, having seen the cattle returning unattended, became apprehensive and set out in search of his father. Having reached the site of occurrence, he untied the complainant. He was informed about the occurrence.
Complainant expressed his ignorance about the motive leading to the incident.
3. Mr. Muhammad Karim Anjum Qasuria, Advocate, for the petitioners contended inter alia, that there is no disinterested ocular or circumstantial evidence which could connect the petitioners with the commission of crime except the bald assertion of Muhammad Usman complainant which stands belied by a host of circumstances; that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 13-7- 2004 at 11 a.m. Whereas the matter was reported on the following day i,e, on 14-7-2004 at 1-45 a.m.
After a noticeable delay of 13 hours and 45 minutes for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that according to the F.I.R. And the site plan, the alleged occurrence had taken place in the fields of Abdul Sattar whereas per report of Patwari who had gone to the spot in the company of Investigating Officer to determine the spot, the occurrence had taken place in the fields of Muhammad Ayaz which negates the version of the complainant; that the medical evidence is also not in conformity with the allegations made against the petitioners. He further maintained that from the available record, it could not be said as to who caused fatal injury which leaves room for consideration as to the common intention of the others to kill the deceased and therefore, it was a case of further inquiry under section 497, Cr.P.C. He referred to the cases reported as Jaffer and others v. . The State 1980 SCM R 784 and Muhammad Amin and others v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1404 (Karachi).
4. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State, on the other hand, on the strength of a case reported as Sardar Munir Ahmad Dogar v. The State PLD 2004 SC 822 maintained that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to associate the petitioners with the guilt and bail has been refused to the petitioners for valid a reason which hardly calls for interference of this Court.
5. At the stage of bail, the prosecution evidence is not to be appreciated in minute details. Only tentative assessm ent of evidence is desirable and permissible at the stage of bail and not the deep scrutiny or appreciation of evidence.
6. Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Provides that if it appears to the Court at any stage that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accused committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, such accused shall be released on bail. Now what will constitute as sufficient grounds for further inquiry, would depend upon peculiar facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for, that purpose. Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial Court subsequently, after evaluation of evidence. The condition laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
7. No doubt it is true that the occurrence having taken place on 13-7-2004 at 11-00 hours, the F.I.R.
Was lodged on the following day at 1-45 a.m. And the complainant does not claim to have seen the petitioners and co-accused Muhammad Yousaf and Samar (since absconding) firing, resulting in the death of Khalil deceased but the fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners and absconding co-accused stand directly charged in the F.I.R. And sufficient material on record in the shape of medical evidence and recovery of crime-empties from the spot prima facie show participation of the petitioners and their accomplices in the crime in question. Resultantly, without highlighting merits of the case, I find that no case for grant of bail has been made out and the application of the petitioners merits dismissal and I order accordingly. The rulings cited on behalf of the petitioners are distinguishable and speak of the different situation. It may be pointed out that an authority in one bail matter is not necessary to be applicable in the other bail matter because every case is to be decided keeping in view its own peculiar facts and circumstances. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.