JUDGMENT ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMMKANI, J.- This common judgment shall dispose of the instant bail petition filed by petitioner Barkatullah son of Hamidullah and connected Cr.Misc.BA No.276 B/2014, filed by petitioner Barkat Ullah son of Gul Faraz, as both are arising out of the same F.I.R No.756 dated 19.09.2014, registered under sections 302/460/458/148/149 P.P.C. read with S.15 AA at Police Station Lakki, District Lakki Marwat.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. It appears from First Information Report of deceased then injured Mir Wali Khan that on the fateful night at 0030 hours, some four/five persons entered his house and on his commotion, one of them opened fire at him with pistol, as a result he was hit. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by his wife Mst. Bibi Tahira, whose statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded on the same day, but she too, has not named the present petitioners therein, rather charged unknown culprits without disclosing their features and descriptions. It was on 15.10.2014 i.e. after six days of the incident, when she, recorded statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. charging therein the petitioners and their other co-accused by names along with parentage and residences.
In her statement she has not furnished the source of her satisfaction about complicity of the petitioners in the commission of offence. Moreso, she being a Pardha Nasheen lady, how she learnet and recognized details of each and every accused is a begging question. Though, she identified the petitioners in identification parade, but in absence of mention of any descriptions and features of the culprits by the deceased then injured in his initial report and Mst. Bibi Tahira in her earlier statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., authenticity and credibility of the identification parade, conducted after delay of 4/5 five days of the arrest of the accused/petitioners, is yet to be determined during trial. Besides, there is no FSL report qua recovered crime empties and the pistol allegedly recovered from one of the petitioner on his pointation. The petitioners have not confessed their guilt before competent Court of law. Apart from above, out of 4/5 accused, only one has been charged for firing at the deceased then injured, who was that one, whether any one of the petitioner or none, if none whether they had any common intention with that particular accused who has been assigned the role of fatal shots, are other circumstances, which makes the case of the petitioners that of further inquiry into their guilt. It is settled law that bail may not be refused merely on the ground of charge of the accused in a heinous offence, when otherwise, he is found entitled for concession of bail because any mistaken relief of bail, can be repaired by convicting the accused, if proved guilty at the trial, but no proper reparation can be offered for his unjustified incarceration, albeit, his acquittal in the long run.
4. Resultantly, both the petitions are allowed and the accused/petitioners are admitted to bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrte/MOD, concerned. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.