' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.--- Petitioner Shabbir Khan, who is involved in case F.I.R. No,306 dated 25- 5-2009 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. And section 13 of the Arms Ordinance in Police Station Saddar Haripur has been refused bail by the learned two Courts below, therefore, he has moved the present bail petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Nisar Khan complainant on 25-5-2009 at 4-30 hours reported to the police in Emergency Reporting Centre DHQ Hospital Haripur to the effect that one Saleem Khan son of Freed Khan had demanded Rs,10,000 as loan from him to whom he promised to pay on the last evening;- that it was about 1115 hours when the said Saleem Khan came to him for taking the loan amount and he got him sit on the cot while he asked his mother that Saleem Khan had come to him for taking loan upon which his mother JMIst. Zariat-un-Nisah came to the cattleshed and ordered him to bring the amount from home; that as he entered the room he heard the report of fireshot and he rushed to the cattleshed where he saw one Shabbir son of Dadan Khan, duly armed with .12 bore shot gun, who on seeing the complainant at once fired second shot, which hit his mother and Saleem Khan, both sustaining injuries fell down on the spot. Shabbir Khan decamped from the spot after scaling over the wall of the cattleshed but was identified by the complainant in the light of bulb. Later on both injured, mother of the complainant and Saleem Khan, succumbed to their injuries and died on the spot. The motive as alleged by the complainant was that the accused Shabbir Khan had taken Rs,1,00,000 for alienating his landed property which amount was demanded by the mother of the complainant.
3. Mr. Abdul Razzaq Chughtai, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the petitioner, that there is inordinate unexplained delay of four hours in lodging the F.I.R. That the report was made after due consultation and deliberation; that it was a night occurrence and no source of light has been shown in the site-plan; that the legal heirs of deceased Saleem Khan later on charged the complainant Nisar Khan with his real brother Rehman Khan along with the petitioner which makes it a case of further enquiry; that the investigation in the case is complete and petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has been directly charged with fatal role of killing two innocent persons in a promptly lodged F.I.R. Learned counsel representing the L.Rs, of deceased Saleem Khan vehemently opposed the concession of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the L.Rs,, of deceased are satisfied about the involvement of petitioner in the occurrence and are withdrawing the case against Nisar Khan and his brother and it was further added that Nisar Khan and his brother were released on bail on conceding these facts before the trial Court. The prosecution version is supported by the witnesses, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. A perusal of record would show that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. With specific role of killing of two innocent persons. The recovery of weapon of offence has been effected on the pointation of the petitioner, is also a strong factor prima facie connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The facts and circumstances of the case would conveniently invite the application of provisions of law entailing punishment falling within the prohibitory part of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, the petition in hand fails and is accordingly dismissed.