' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Gohar Rehman, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal from a judgment dated 22-2-2008 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar granting bail to Muhammad Tahir, respondent No, 1.
2. Facts of the case have been incorporated in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo of petition and need not be reiterated. Suffice is to state that the respondent involved in case F.I.R.
No,'350 dated 20-6-2007 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Zaida, having been declined bail by learned Judicial Magistrate, Swabi and thereafter by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Swabi, vide orders dated 5-9-2007 and 5-10-2007, respectively, preferred Criminal Misc. No,1338 of 2007 for grant of bail before learned High Court, which has been allowed vide judgment impugned herein.
3. Kh. Muhammad Khan Gara, Advocate for the petitioner, attempted to argue that the respondent involved in a murder case was declined bail by learned Judicial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi, for valid reasons; that learned High Court has granted bail to the respondent primarily on the basis of police opinion and the report of fire-arm expert totally ignoring that overwhelming evidence was available to connect the respondent with the commission of crime. To supplement the contentions reliance was placed on Haji Inayatul-Haq v.
Said Muhammad Khan and another (1988 SCM R 1743) and Muhammad Sharif v. Shafqat Hussain alias Shaukat and another (1999 SCM R 338).
4. On the other hand, Barrister M. Zahoor-ul-Haq, for respondent No,1 and Mr. Attaullah Khan Tangi, Advocate appearing for the State, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment whole heartedly.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and re-examining the material on file, we find that trial in this case has commenced and 7 witnesses have been examined. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of High Court relating to bail particularly in case of murder when the trial is to commence so as to avoid discussion and remarks on the merits of the case as held in Ehsan Akbar v. The State and 2 others (2007 SCM R 482). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment. The case law referred by learned counsel does not help the petitioner. Learned High Court has reached the conclusion with valid and sound reasonings which are unexceptionable. Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below for facility sake:- "7. Both the two brothers accused in this case have been attributed the same role among whom one is declared by the Investigating Agency to be innocent. Such opinion of the Investigating Agency would not exonerate his co-accused as normally reliance cannot be placed on the opinion of Investigating Officer at bail stage but, nonetheless, its relevancy, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, cannot be completely excluded. Reliance may be placed in this regard on the authority laid down, in the case Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Abbas and another (1998 SCMR 284). Therefore, the opinion of the Investigating Officer in this case, when coupled with the report of the Fire Arms Experts about the crime empties, certainly casts reasonable doubt on the prosecution version making the case open for further inquiry. Resultantly, the accused- petitioner is held entitled to bail which is allowed to him on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court."
6. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed and .