Muhammad Haneef, accused-petitioner facing prosecution in case FIR No, 06 dated 04.1.2013 under Sections 302/148/149, PPC registered at Police Station, Karak District Karak was refused bail by the learned two Courts below. So, he has approached this Court for his release on bail.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case as per F.I.R. are that Muhammad Jamil deceased then injured on 4.1.2013 at 9.45 hours made report at Emergency Room in KDA Hospital, Karak to the effect that on the same day at 8.30 a.m., he was present near his house, meanwhile, accused' Muhammad Jalal, Muhammad Haneef, Akheer Jalal, Muhammad Fayaz and Muhammad Shahid were standing there duly armed, and on seeing the deceased complainant, accused Muhammad Jalal ordered his co-accused to 'kill him, upon which Muhammad Haneef, accused-petitioner started firing at him as a result of which he sustained injuries. Accused, Akheer Jalal, Muhammad Fayaz and Muhammad Shahid also made firing at the complainant but the same did not hit him. Besides, the complainant the occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by his son Muhammad Mushtaq.
Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over the landed property.
3. Initially, a case under Sections 324/148/149, PPC was registered against the accused but the complainant succumbed to his injuries at KTH, Peshawar on 14.1.2013, therefore, the section of law was changed and converted to 302, PPC vide Nagai Mad No, 36 dated 14.1.2013.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well the learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the case.
5. After perusing the material available on record I find that the accused-petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. for attempting at the life of deceased effectively, by firing at him, medical evidence and the recovery of five empties of 7.62 bore effected from the spot coupled with ocular evidence including motive fully supports the version of the deceased complainant.
5-A. So, keeping in view the above circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of further inquiry has no substance in it. Mere possibility of further inquiry exists almost in every criminal case but it is no ground for treating matter falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The practice of making out a case of further inquiry by the Court in a vague manner to make out a case for grant of bail was deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported in 2006 SCM R-1265. A case would only fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., if the Court reaches to a conclusion that on material available before it, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of non-bailable offence or in offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and in absence of such grounds there will be no occasion for the Court to hold that the case is of further inquiry. At this stage a tentative assessment of material available on record shows that no reasonable grounds do exist to believe that the accused-petitioner is not guilty of non-bailable offence and as such his case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. entailing the death or imprisonment for life.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
However, it is clarified that the above findings are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either side at trial.