' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- Petitioner (Kherat Hussain) seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,323, dated 4-6-2006 under sections 302, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Uch Sharif got lodged by one Hazur Bakhsh, complainant.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the accused party apprehended that Mst. Amir Mai (deceased) had become informer for their illegal activities and thus, they though of murdering her.
On the fateful night when the complainant along with his family members was asleep, on hearing the noise he woke up and saw in the lantern light that accused Abdul Hamid, Faqir Bakhsh, Fazal Hussain, Hamid Arain, Muhammad Amjad all armed with kalashnikovs, Kherat Hussain (petitioner) armed with repeater and two unknown persons carrying repeaters were present in the courtyard of Ghulam Farid. In the meanwhile, Mst. Amir Mai, Mst. Shamim Mai and Muhammad Akram also woke up and in the sight of the complainant accused Abdul Hamid fired a shot hitting the neck of Mst.
Amir Mai; the fire shot by Faqir _ Bakhsh hit right side of her chest; the fire shot by Kherat Hussain (petitioner) hit her right wrist and the second fire by Faqir hitting the left shoulder of Mst. Amir Mai and fire shot by Fazal Hussain hit her right hand. Mst. Amir Mai injured fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On hue and cry raised by the complainant party, the accused were retrieving when suddenly Lal Khan father of the complainant also woke up and inquired from the accused, whereupon, Abdul Hamid, Faqir Bakhsh and Fazal Hussain accused made fires from their respective weapons hitting the head of Lal Khan who also succumbed at the spot and accused made good their escape.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that implication of the petitioner was result of mala fide and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant; that the complainant being dissatisfied with the conduct of investigation had also filed a private complaint wherein he named six other persons altogether different from the set of accused as set out in the F.I.R., including one S.-I. And two unknown persons and the accused have been summoned by the learned trial Court; that the story as given in the F.I.R. And the private complaint were altogether different from each other and further in the private complaint it was specifically pleaded that earlier statement of the complainant was not rightly recorded by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel further argues that in view of material deviation between the two prosecution versions one shown in the F.I.R. And the other in the private complaint the case against the petitioner is open to further inquiry.
On merits, the learned counsel contends that though in the F.I.R. The petitioner was alleged to have inflicted fire-arm injury on the wrist of the deceased but in the postmortem examination no such injury was detected, the benefit of such discrepancy must also be extended to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Umair Mohsin, Advocate appearing on behalf of legal heirs of deceased Mst. Amir Mai, contends that in fact the complainant had compromised with the accused party and intentionally in order to benefit them, he filed the private complaint twisting the real facts as recorded in the F.I.R. Further contends that sufficient evidence is available on the prosecution file to connect the petitioner with the commission of the heinous offence,' which is fully covered by the prohibitory clause, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. It is next argued that after the occurrence, the petitioner remained absconder for more than seven months and proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Were also initiated against him and after his arrest the crime weapon was also recovered from him. Lastly, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner also remained involved in twelve criminal cases, .Similarly his co-accused also have criminal antecedents, as such, the petitioner being member of a desperate gang, was not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the wrist of Mst. Arnir Mai. During the investigation the police has collected sufficient evidence in shape of statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. To prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence, which is further corroborated by the factum of recovery. The offence with which the A petitioner is charged is punishable with death, as such, falls with the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and their exist no exceptional circumstances to enlarge the petitioner on bail in these circumstances. Mere filing of a private complaint with different set of accused is not indicative of the fact that petitioner has not committed the alleged offence. Similarly although abscondence of an accused is not conclusive by itself to establish his guilt and its probative value depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and would not disentitle him to B the grant of bail on this ground alone, yet the same is universally admitted as evidence of guilt of the accused and is treated as a corroborative piece of evidence. Reliance is placed on Mst. Dur Naz and another v.
Yousuf and another 2005 SCM R 1906. Furthermore, mere possibility of further inquiry which exists almost in every criminal case, is no ground for treating the matter as one under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case Asmat Ullah Khan v. Bazi Khan and another PLD 1988 SC 621.
7. The accumulative effect of what has been discussed above is that, at this stage the petitioner has failed to make out a case of post-arrest bail in his favour. This petition accordingly is dismissed. 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.