Above titled revision petition is directed against the. order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, dated 11.04.2008, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 302/341,109/34, A.P.0 was registered at Police Station, Thorar on the complaint of Jan Muhammad Khan. It was reported that on 12-12-2002 the complainant was present in his house when Jamroz Khan told him that his son Sajjad alias Bila along-with Iftikhar Ahmed, Shamroz, Faheem, Fida Hussain and Imtiaz was coming back to home after leaving the house of Muhammad Shafi Khan.
The accused-petitioner Jannat Hussain, Shoukat Hussain, Imran, Zahoor Hussain and Muhammad Khan stopped them in their way and started firing with Kalashnikov. The fire hit Sajjad alias Bila and he succumbed to the injuries while on the way to hospital. Motive behind the occurrence was old enmity between the parties. The occurrence was witnessed by companions of the deceased.
3. After his arrest, the accused petitioner applied for bail before the trial Court but the same was refused while the revision petition was also dismissed by this Court through an order passed on 27- 12-2004. After examination of some of the prosecution witnesses he again applied for his bail before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot which was again refused vide the impugned order, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that an enmity was prevailing between the parties. A story was concocted to rope the petitioner and others in a false accusation. The petitioner and others were alleged for firing at the deceased with Kalashnikov but only two entry wounds while bruises were also found at the person of deceased. This shows that true facts were suppressed by the prosecution. Five accused persons were alleged for firing at the deceased and witnesses so far examined by the prosecution failed to appreciate that which fire made by the petitioner hit the deceased. Forensic science report reveals that empties seized from the place of occurrence were not fired from the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner, thus no independent corroborative material in support of the ocular version was brought on record. Allegation of firing and causing injuries at the person of the deceased against the petitioner was doubtful and case against him was covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, by accepting the revision petition, impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the occurrence took place during broad day light.
Identification of the accused-petitioner was not in doubt. He was nominated in promptly lodged F.I.R and a specific role of firing with Kalashnikov and causing fatal injuries at the person of the deceased was ascribed to him. Weapon of offence was recovered at his instance and the allegation was confirmed by post mortem report. strong prima facie case connecting the accused-petitioner with the offence existed on record and it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail. The impugned order being correct and in accordance with law and principles governing bail matter needs no interference, 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 stated here that any deeper appreciation and detailed scrutiny of prosecution evidence is not required at bail stage as any expression shall amount to pre judge the merits of a case which may cause prejudice to the parties. Only a tentative assessment of the material on record is desirable for disposal of an application under Section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. In the present case the deceased died of bullet injuries. The petitioner alongwith others was alleged for firing with Kalashnikov at him. Eye-witnesses so far examined by the prosecution clearly stated that the fire made by him hit the deceased, the weapon was also recovered at his instance.
Besides the accused-petitioner and others were alleged for forming an unlawful assembly, way laid and committing the offence in furtherance of common intention., In presence of the account given by the eye-witnesses, mere fact that the crime empties seized from place of occurrence were not shown to have been fired from the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused- petitioner was not sufficient to bring his case within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, it cannot be said that Court below committed any error while refusing bail.
10. Upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.