' SYED TAHIR ALI SHAH, J.--- Deedar Ali petitioner/accused was booked for the murder of one Mst.
Sitara vide F.I.R. No,25 of 2001 Police Station Ali Abad Hunza District Gilgit. The police after necessary investigation into the alleged offence sent the accused for trial under section 302, P. P. C.
2. At the initial stage, before the trial could start petitioner/accused rushed to trial Court for bail but such concession was not extended to him either by the trial Court or the Chief Court Northern Areas.
3. Not satisfied with the result of his previous bail application, the petitioner/accused filed second bail application with the trial Court, when some of P.Ws. Including the two, alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence were examined by the trial Court.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit vide his order, dated 19-5-2006 extended bail facilities to the petitioner/ accused on the score of further inquiry.. The short reason furnished by the trial Court in support of his bail order, seemingly was, that the two eye-witnesses namely Mst. Hina and Azra being declared hostile from their previous statements during their examination in the Court.
According to the learned trial Court the resiling of the two eye-witnesses from their earlier statements had posed a new situation which according to him has rendered the case as one of further inquiry, entitling accused for a case of bail.
5. Aggrieved with the bail order returned by the trial Court the State through Advocate-General moved an application for cancellation of bail so allowed by the trial Court before the learned Chief Court. The Chief Court after having heard both sides allowed the application and recalled the bail order returned by the trial Court. Hence this petition.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties at some length and also assessed the available material tentatively.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused vehemently contended that during their examination in the trial Court the two P.Ws., who are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, have resiled from their early statements and declared hostile which formed the concrete basis for the release of the accused on bail. Attacking the bail withdrawal order of the Chief Court he contended that the two eye-witnesses being turned hostile there remains nothing to connect the petitioner with the crime alleged. He further contended that a valid ground of further inquiry has been developed which the Chief Court failed to take notice and illegally and without jurisdiction withdrew the facility extended to the accused by the trial Court. He referred 2006, PCr.LJ 1671 (Quetta), 2004 M LD 1337 (Peshawar) in support of his contentions.
8. The learned Advocate-General on the other hand controverted the points so raised and contended that the statements of P.Ws. Though, resiled ones cannot be ruled out of consideration and the bail order on the basis of these resiled statements cannot be sustained under the umbrella of further inquiry.
9. The learned trial Court, as record reveals while passing the bail order now impugned before me, has furnished no other reason except the resiling of the two, P.Ws. From their earlier statements.
10. It is an admitted position of the case that some P.Ws. Including ones the eye-witnesses have been examined, and many more witnesses yet to be examined. Since the trial of the case is in progress and comments on the evidentiary value of the resiled statements of P.Ws. Being one of deeper appreciation is avoided at this stage lest it may prejudice the ultimate finding to be given by the learned trial Court. Besides the offence charged with is of a heinous one coming within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner has therefore, no case to intervene into the fmdings of the Chief Court which otherwise is not capracious and devoid of reasoning. Reliance can conveniently be made on 1995 SCM R 1242.
11. The authorities referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of little value in matters related to bail as these have been viewed in appeal after the conclusion of trial.
12. I have, while going through the record of the case came across an application filed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. By the petitioner accused and is pending adjudication in the trial Court. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of this application under law on top priority basis. With these observations the leave is refused.