Through this single judgment I propose to dispose of the instant bail application (Cr.M.No, 517-P of 2013) as well as the connected bail application (Cr.M.No, 521-P of 2013) as both are the out come of one and the same FIR No, 144 dated 14/03/2013.
2. Accused-petitioners Fahad and Abbas involved in case FIR No, 144 dated 14/03/2013 under Section 302/34, PPC registered at Police Station, Par Hoti District Mardan were refused bail by the learned two Courts below. Hence they have approached this Court for their release on bail.
3. Precisely stating facts of the case are that on 14/03/2013 at 14.30 hours Muhammad Amin complainant reported the matter to the local police to the effect that he had come to the house of his uncle Umra Khan situated at Par Hoti and was present in the house when received information that his brother Bahadur Khan who had also come there in connection with examination of his daughter, was lying murdered at the spot. The complainant alongwith his other relative rushed to the spot and found the dead body of his brother lying murdered. He is fully satisfied that his brother has been murdered' by Fahad and Abbas accused-petitioners by firing at him. Motive is stated to be strained relations between his deceased brother and the accused party.
3-A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
4. It is settled principle of law that at bail granting stage the material available on record is to be sifted through in order to establish whether prima facie the petitioner before the Court can be connected with the crime in question and hence no detailed inquiry is to be concluded by the Court. It is also settled law that mere presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence is no ground to refuse bail to him on the basis of vicarious liability, because the same course would also be proved or disproved at the stage of trial.
5. In the instant case from perusal of the FIR it is apparent that neither the complainant himself is an eye-witness of the occurrence nor he has shown any source of his information and satisfaction regarding the involvement of the accused-petitioner in the commission of offence. There is no denial the fact that in the instant tragedy the brother of the complainant namely Bahadur Khan has lost his life but the question is as to whether sufficient incriminating materials are available on file, on the basis of which reasonable grounds do exit to believe/suggest that the accused- petitioners are connected with the commission of offence charged with or not. At present the prosecution has not placed on record any reasonable/sufficient incriminating materials on the basis whereof man of ordinary prudence could believe that there appears reasonable grounds for believing that accused-petitioners are connected with the offence charged with but there are grounds to further probe into the guilt of accused-petitioners. Mere incorporation of the name of the accused in the FIR is not enough to withhold the concession of bail. Thus the case of the accused-petitioners falls within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. which entitled him to the concession of bail.
6. Resultantly both the bail applications are allowed and the accused-petitioners Fahad and Abbas are hereby admitted to bail provided each of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Maga/Judicial Magistrate. Sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
7. Before parting with this order I must clarify that the observations made above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either side at the trial.
The above are the reasons of my short order announced on 8.5.2013.