' SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J.--- The above titled revision petition is directed against the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur dated 29-4-2006, whereby the petitioners were refused bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the revision petition are that a case under sections 302/324, 337-H(2), 447/34, A.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Afzalpur on the complaint of Raja Zaman Abbas. It was reported that the complainant was a resident of village Mehmoonpur. On 3-1-2004, at 8 a.m. Saideen son of Akbar Ali and Sabteen son of Javid started demolishing a wall constructed by him in his land. They were armed with lethal weapons. The accused abused and started beating the complainant. On hue and cry, his uncle Subedar Masood Ahmed, aunt Jamshad Begum, Raja Shabir Ahmed Khan and Asad Masood came at the place of occurrence and tried to restrain the accused from fighting and demolishing the wall. Upon this they started abusing them and opened attack. Saideen accused fired with .12 bore gun which hit Mst.
Jamshad Begum at her face and neck while the fire made by Sabteen accused hit her at chest and other parts of the body. She fell down and succumbed to the injuries. It was alleged that the accused-persons alto fired on the complainant, his uncle and Asad Masood but they save by hiding themselves behind the wall. The accused-persons were also alleged for aerial firing. The occurrence was stated to be witnessed by Masood Ahmed Khan, Asad Masood, Shabir Ahmed Khan, the complainant and other residents of the locality. 'Alleged motive behind the occurrence was that the accused-persons were involved in Narcotics business and the complainant party had been trying to stop them. An enmity over a piece of land was also prevailing between the parties.
3. After registration of the case, the accused-petitioners were apprehended by the police. They applied for bail before the trial Court and the same was declined through the impugned order.
Hence, the above titled revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that an enmity was prevailing between the parties because of which the accused persons were roped in a false case by the complainant and eye- witnesses. No proof regarding possession of the disputed land was brought on record by the prosecution. Story about demolishing wall was not supported by the record. The place of occurrence was also" highly doubtful. The prosecution story being improbable was not worth consideration and there was no justification to refuse bail. According to the learned counsel, cases under Articles 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and 13/20/65, Arms Act were also registered against the accused-petitioners and after completion of the trial, they were acquitted of the charges. He emphasized that the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding offences under Articles 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and 13/20/65, Arms Act may be considered while deciding the bail application in hand. He further argued that as per claim of the prosecution, the occurrence took place at 8 a.m. In a thickly populated area but no independent witness was cited. Reports prepared by the Forensic Science Expert were also doubtful. Only close relatives of the deceased and the complainant were examined in support of the case. No independent corroboration to the ocular version was brought on record. The trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the case against the accused-petitioners needs further probe therefore, by accepting the revision petition, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioners be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and Additional Advocate-General that the petitioners were nominated in promptly lodged F.I.R., names of the eye- witnesses and the deceased were also given in it. Time and place of occurrence were not disputed.
Kind of weapons used for commission of the offence were corroborated by post-mortem report and the same were recovered at instance of the accused-petitioners. It was contended that the occurrence took place nearby the residences of eye-witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence was natural. They had given a true account of the occurrence during trial and succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the accused-petitioners. It was submitted that there was sufficient material on record to connect them with the alleged offence and the trial Court did not commit any error while refusing bail therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. It may be mentioned here, that while deciding a bail application any deeper appreciation or detailed scrutiny of the prosecution evidence is neither permissible nor desirable. Only a bird eye view is required for the purpose. In the present case, it was alleged that on 3-1-2004 at 8 a.m. The accused-petitioners armed with .12 bore guns came at the place of occurrence and started demolishing a wall constructed by the complainant. They started abusing and beating him. On hue and cry, Masood Ahmed Khan, Jamshad Begum, Shabir Ahmed Khan and Asad Masood came there and tried to stop them upon this they also abused and attacked them. Sultan Saideen accused fired at Mst. Jamshad Begum which hit her at face and neck while the other fire made by Sultan Mazhar Sabteen also caused injuries at her chest and other parts of the body. She fell down and succumbed to the injuries. A perusal of the post-mortem report shows that the deceased suffered fire-arm injuries and pellets were also recovered from the dead body during autopsy. It is important to note here, that five crime-empties of .12 bore gun were seized from the place of occurrence while weapons were recovered from the residential rooms of the accused-petitioners at their instance.
8. The point raised by the learned counsel that the evidence recorded by the relevant Courts cognizant with offences under Articles 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and Arms Act may also be considered while deciding the application in hand, merits no consideration, as it is clear from the record that after the occurrence the police party conducted raid to arrest the accused-petitioners and recovered some weapons and intoxicants. During trial it was found that the weapons were licensed while the intoxicants were not recovered at the instance of the present petitioners, therefore, they were acquitted of the charges. Thus, it implies that the evidence recorded therein was irrelevant and was not a part of the case in hand, therefore, it could not be considered for the purpose.
9. In light of facts listed above, I am of the view that a strong prima facie case and sufficient material to connect the accused-petitioners with the alleged offences was present on record. The order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference. As the same was recorded keeping in view the facts and law, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.