ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Petitioner, namely, Raheem Khan has been arrested by the local police in case F.I.R. No,4 dated 5-2-2011 registered at Police Station, Jani Khel District Bannu under section 302/34, P.P.C. He applied for his release on bail to the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu but did not get the relief and his application was dismissed on 28-2-2011 and 11-3- 2011 respectively. Hence the petitioner filed the instant petition for his release on bail before this Court.
2. Precisely facts of. the instant case are that complainant Mst. Jameela wife of Hakeem Nawaz, on 5-2-2011 along with dead body of her husband reported the matter to the local police of Police Station, Jani Khel District Bannu that on the same day she along with her husband were coming to their house. At about 1300 hours when they reached near the land of one Sherin Khan, accused Rahim Khan, Ibrahim, Ghafoor armed with Kalashnikovs came and started firing at her husband, as a result of which he was hit, fell on the ground and died. The occurrence was witnessed by her and the motive for the occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. is dispute over the womenfolk.
3. It is to be noted that the complainant in spite of service did not turn up, therefore, learned D.A.-G. represented the State.
4. Learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argued that the occurrence took place on 4-2-2011 at 1300 hours while the report was lodged on 5-2-2011 at 0900 hours and thus the report was lodged with the delay of 19/20 hours and the reason shown in the F.I.R. is as curfew like situation which is not believable. He further contended that all the three accused included the present accused/petitioner have been charged for firing but it is not known to with whose fire shot the deceased was hit. He further submitted that no empty has been recovered from the spot in spite of firing from Kalashnikovs by the persons. According to learned counsel for the petitioner nine persons have recorded their statements before the police about the presence of accused / petitioner in the Masjid. He further argued that according to prosecution opinion dated 22-2-2011 the accused/petitioner was not present at spot at the time of occurrence. According to him the site plan has not disclosed the places where from the deceased was fired at. His last argument is of no avail because the places where the accused was present at the time of occurrence have been shown at Points Nos.3 to 4. He further argued that the deceased was fugitive from law as would show copies of F.I.Rs, available on file and there is likelihood that he was fired at by some one else.
5. On the other hand, learned D.A.-G. for State rebutted the argument of learned counsel for accused/petitioner and contended that the accused/ petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the delay is explained in the F.I.R. because curfew was imposed in the relevant time, which hampered the registration of case. According to him the medical report supports the prosecution version.
6. Arguments advanced, by learned counsel of the petitioner and State heard and file perused, in the light of which my discussion is as under.
7. I would first discuss the delay in lodging of F.I.R. As stated above the incident was reported to the police after 19/20 hours on the next day and the reason shown in the F.I.R. is that there was curfew like situation in the area. This fact is to be thrashed at the trial but at the moment nothing is available to show that in fact curfew was imposed at the relevant time which prevented the complainant to lodge F.I.R. in time. This delay of 19/20 hours has made the case of the petitioner is arguable for the purpose of bail because there seems chances of consultation. The next material to be considered is that no empty has been recovered from the spot. According to the record number of the injuries were caused to the deceased but in spite of this no empty has been recovered from the spot. The deceased was also fugitive from law as would be shown from the F.I.Rs, available on record. This has also made the case of petitioner as arguable for the purpose of bail. Another fact to be noted is the statement of nine persons recorded by the police. All these statements disclose that the accused/petitioner was present in the Masjid for offering prayed. On the basic of these statements, the Investigating Officer has given an opinion that at the time of occurrence the accused/ petitioner was present in the Masjid and not on the spot. Though the police opinion is not binding upon the Court but it may be taken into consideration in the matter of bail.
8. In short the report was lodged after the delay of 19 hours. In spite of several injuries caused to the deceased, no empty has been recovered from the spot. It is yet to be established as whether the present accused/petitioner was present on the spot at the relevant time or not. The deceased is fugitive from law and was charged in different F.I.Rs, Moreover, the case of present accused/petitioner is different from other co-accused as they, are absconders, and have not surrendered before the police.
9. In the light of the above circumstances the case of petitioner requires further inquiry into his guilt.
Therefore, he is allowed to be released on bail provided lie furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Bannu. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of sufficient means. 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.