'MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.---Through the instant appeal, the judgment of the Shariat Court dated 12th November, 2010 has been challenged, whereby accused-respondent has been released on bail.
2. A case under sections 285, 286, 287, A.P.C., was registered at Police Station City Mirpur on 14th October, 2010, on the report of Mazhar-ul-Haq, A.S.-I., alleging therein that during the patrol duty at 10 a.m.. In Sector F-2, near City Hospital, he heard a sound of blast. On visiting the spot, he was informed that Muhammad Usman Ali, his father Maqsood Hussain were busy in gas refilling in cylinders in the shop when a blast occurred. Muhammad Usman Ali and Shahban were burnt in the incident. The walls of the shop also collapsed. The refilling of the-cylinders was being done under the supervision of Muhammad Zaheer, son of Muhammad Latif. This is an illegal act, which attracts sections 285, 286 and 287, A.P.C. At this report, a case under the aforesaid sections of A.P.0 was registered by the police. Later on the injured of the incident succumbed to their injuries, therefore, section 302, A.P.C' etc. Was also added. During the investigation, the police arrested accused- respondent No,1, herein. He moved an application for grant of bail before the District Court of Criminal jurisdiction. The application was dismissed on 28th October, 2010. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-respondent filed an application for grant of bail in the Shariat of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. A learned single Judge in the Shariat Court accepted the application vide impugned judgment on 12th November, 2010, under sections 285, 286, 287, 109, 34, 316, 319, 322, 337 and 302, A.P.C.
3. Messrs Muhammad Akram Mughal and Muhammad Azeem Dutt, counsel for the appellant, argued that the judgment of the Shariat Court is not maintainable as the same is against law and facts of the case. It was argued that the Investigation Agency has collected sufficient material against the accused-respondent on the basis of which he was prima facie connected with the crime and was not entitled for the concession of bail. The learned single Judge in the Shariat Court failed to apply the correct law. The learned counsel argued that the accused-respondent was involved in an illegal act which endangered the lives of the general public. He forced Muhammad Usman Ali and Maqsood Hussain apart from other employee Shahban to perform the duty of refilling of gas cylinders, which was dangerous for the human lives and ultimately they died during performance of ' their work. The accused-respondent is guilty of intentional murder. The judgment of the Shariat Court is against the rules governing the bail matters.
4. While controverting the arguments, Messrs Muhammad Idress and Sadaqat Hussain Raja, counsel for accused-respondent, argued that the judgment of the Shariat Court is perfectly legal.
The accused-respondent has noting to do with the said gas cylinder refilling shop. The shop was in the ownership of the deceased, Muhammad Usman and his father Maqsood Hussain. He has no concern with the gas refilling business. His brothers are having gas agencies permit in their names.
The deceased used to purchase the gas cylinders from the gas agency of his brothers. They themselves were refilling the cylinders in their gas cylinder shop as their own business. There is not an iota of evidence against the accused-respondent. He further argued that the case was nitially registeredunder sections 285, 286 and 287 A.P.0 All the offences are bailable. Section 302, A.P.0 is not attracted in the case.
5. Mr. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, Additional Advocate-General, while arguing on behalf of the State, frankly conceded that section 302, A.P.C. Is not attracted in the case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care. The record reveals that on a report made by Zafar Haider Shah, A.S.-I./ A.S.H.O. Police Station City Mirpur, a case under sections 285, 286 and 287, A.P.C. Was registered in the circumstances that a blast occurred in the shop of Muhammad Usman Ali, son of Maqsood Hussain when apart from Muhammad Usman, his father Maqsood Hussain, son of Abdul Ghani and their employee Shahban, son of Maherban Ali were busy in refilling of ges cylinders and during the refilling, a blast occurred.
Muhammad Usman Ali, Maqsood Hussain and Shahban were burnt due to fire.. It is alleged that refilling of gas cylinders is being conducted under the supervision of Zaheer Iqbal son of Muhammad Latif, resident of Khambal. The accused-respondent, Sikandar Latif is neither nominated in the F.I.R. Nor he is shown as owner of the shop. Muhammad Usman Ali, son of Maqsood Hussain and his father Maqsood Hussain, son of Abdul Ghani are shown to be the owners of the shop. While deciding a bail application, the Court has to take a tentative view of the material placed before it i,e, F.I.R., statement of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. And medical evidence and of course the version put forth by the accused, if any. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.
7. Under section 497, Cr.P.C. Any person, accused of a non-bailable offence when brought before the Court and if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been charged with the offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, he shall not be released on bail. Under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., if it appears at any stage of inquiry or trial that there are no reasonable ground for believing that the accused has committed non- bailable offence and there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the accused, he shall pending such inquiry be released on bail. In the instant case, from the contents of F.I.R., prima facie the offences under sections 285, 286 and 287, A.P.0 are attracted. The offences falling under all the aforesaid three sections are bailable. The accused-respondent was A entitled to the concession of bail and he has rightly been extended the concession of bail.
8. Now the question arises whether section 302, A.P.C. Is attracted in the case or not? From the contents of F.I.R. And perusal of material collected by the prosecution, no prima facie case appears to have been committed under section 302, A.P.C. The accused respondent is not nominated in the F.I.R. And from its contents, prima facie, section 302, A.P.C. Is not attracted. The judgment of the Shariat Court is based on sound and A judicious reasoning and is in line with the principles governing the bail matters.
'The result of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.