ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J:- The petitioner Falak Niaz seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.552 dated 27.05.2014 u/s 302/324/34 PPC, P.S. Chamkani, Peshawar.
2. As per prosecution case, complainant Ghazi Rehman alongwith Farhad and Qaisar Khan were going to Peshawar in Motorcar No.U4800/Peshawar when in the meanwhile petitioner alongwith co-accused Momin came on a motorcycle, being driven by petitioner and co-accused sitting behind petitioner duly armed with pistol started firing at the complainant party as a result of which complainant and Farhad sustained injuries while rest of their companions escaped unhurt. While shifting to the hospital Farhad succumbed to his injuries. Consequently on the basis of report of complainant a case vide FIR mentioned above was registered against accused.
Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner is directly charged by complainant in the FIR for commission of offence. Though no role of firing has been attributed to the petitioner but due to his active participation in the shape of driving the motorcycle, the co-accused succeeded in killing the deceased and causing injuries to the complainant from a close range as petitioner was the person who took the co-accused close to the motorcar of complainant party and due to his act, the deceased and complainant were fired from close range by co-accused which is duly supported by medical evidence. The site plan has also supported the version of complainant. The plea of non- attributing of specific role to the petitioner could not be determined at bail stage as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage which could only be done at trial after recording prosecution evidence. Besides, it is a broad day light occurrence due to close relation between the parties, question of identification of accused is ruled out. All the above shows participation of petitioner in preparation of plan for the occurrence as co-accused was his father and due to his efforts being driver of motorcycle, they were succeeded in decamping from the spot. So being son of co-accused question of sharing common intention by petitioner with the co- accused in the commission of offence cannot be ruled out.
4. The motive behind the occurrence over quarrel of women folk rules out any malafide on the part of complainant party regarding false involvement of petitioner and co-accused. Petitioner remained fugitive from law for sufficient long time and process u/s 204 & 87 Cr.PC were initiated against him which deprive him certain rights awarded to him under the law. The co accused Momin (father of petitioner) is also absconder waiting for the fate of bail of petitioner and granting bail to the petitioner would amount to smoothing the way for co-accused. The offence is heinous in nature and falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.PC. The prosecution has collected sufficient materials which prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.
In view of what has been observed above, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, the prosecution is directed to submit complete challan against the petitioner in the competent Court within a fortnight and the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial in a shortest possible time.