1. ' As both the revision petitions relate to the same incident and impugned order dated 19.11.2013; therefore, these are being consolidated and disposed of through this single judgment.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that Sheraz Ahmad, complainant-petitioner, lodged an oral report at City Police Station Muzaffarabad on 17.10.2013 at 6:30 p.m. Alleging therein that his real brother Waqar S/o Qazi Muhammad Saleh is dumb who often wanders here and there. On 7/8.10.2013 while roaming he went at the house of Mairi S/o Yaseen and started peeping through the window.
3. Thereupon Mairi, accused, gave him beating with fists and kicks. In the meantime, Mst. Naseema w/o Nadeem came there and also gave him beating. On hearing hue and cry, the people of locality gathered at the spot and informed the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant took his injured brother to CHM Muzaffarabad, where he was admitted. After discharge from the hospital, Waqar, injured, succumbed to the injuries on 17.10.2013. Therefore, an F.I.R was lodged on the same day.
4. ' On the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 302/34, APC was registered at city Police Station Muzaffarabad on 17.10.2013.
5. ' The accused-respondents were arrested. After arrest, they filed a bail application before Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaffarabad on 2.11.2013, which was rejected to the extent of Mat. Naseema and Nadeem, accused-petitioners, whereas the same was allowed to the extent of other accused-respondents vide its order dated 19.11.2013. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from aforesaid order, Sheraz Ahmad, complainant, moved Revision Petition No, 389/2013 for cancellation of to Yaseen, Umair and Mst. Parveen by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaffarabad, whereas Mat. Naseema and Nadeem, accused-petitioners, filed Revision Petition No, 406/2013 for grant of bail; hence, these revision petitions.
6. ' Shahid Ali Khan, the learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner submitted that the Court below allowed bail to the accused-respondents in an illegal manner because the accused- respondents are clearly nominated in the F.I.R and their specific roles have also been mentioned therein. He further argued that the trial Court fell in error while in passing the impugned order because the offences are non-bailable. The learned Counsel agitated that the trial Court also failed to consider the evidence and other material available on record against the accused- respondents and allowed them bail without any justifiable reasons; therefore, the revision petition filed by complainant may be accepted and the impugned order to that extent may be set-aside.
7. ' Tariq Alam, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State fully owned and supported arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner.
8. ' Conversely, Shaikh Mushtaq Ahmad, the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners, controverted the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner and vigorously contended that a false case has been registered against the accused-respondents. The learned Counsel also pointed out that according to complainant the occurrence occurred on 7/8.10.2013, whereas the F.I.R after a considerable delay was lodged on 17.10.2013 without any explanation. He further argued that the trial Court rightly allowed bail to the extent of Yaseen, Umair and Mst. Parveen; therefore, the impugned order may be maintained to their extent. The learned Counsel, while arguing on behalf of other accused-petitioners Mst. Naseema and Nadeem, contended that the Court below committed grave error while disallowing bail to Mst. Naseema and Nadeem and ignored the rule of consistency; therefore, the impugned order to their extent may be set-aside and bail be granted to them. The learned Counsel also agitated that the investigation has been completed and the challan has also been submitted before the Court; therefore, accused-petitioners are no more required for investigation purpose, who may be released on bail' by accepting Revision Petition No, 406/2013. The learned Counsel finally submitted for dismissal of Revision Petition No, 289/2013.
9. ' I have heard arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties as well as the State and perused the record made available with care.
10. The instant matter pertains to bail and now it is a well settled principle of law that at bail stage it is neither permissible nor desirable to make a deep scrutiny or minute study of the evidence on the record to reach a conclusion whether in the given circumstances the accused are entitled to the concession of bail or not.
11. ' It will be useful to mention here that in the cases of cancellation of bail matters, it has to be viewed from altogether a different angle than that of the question of allowing bail matters and once by the lower Court then it needs some strong and cogent reasons for its cancellation.
12. ' It may also be pointed out that mere heinousness or gravity of offence itself is no ground for the refusal of the bail. Even otherwise, it is settled law that bail should not be withheld as punishment .
13. ' In the present case, the allegation against the accused-petitioners is that when Waqar Ahmad, deceased, was peeping through the window, he was attacked by the accused-persons with fists and kicks on 7/8.10.2013, but the F.I.R was lodged on 17.10.2013. According to F.I.R, Waqar Ahmad, victim, was brought in CMH on 8.10.2013, where he remained admitted and was discharged on 11.10.2013. It is important to mention here that in early part of the F.I.R the complainant stated that victim is dumb who cannot speak but in the second part of F.I.R he stated that he made personal inquiry from victim, who told the names of accused-persons, which creates 'doubt in the prosecution story and it is settled principle of law that the 8 benefit of slightest doubt arising in the case goes in favour of the accused even at bail stage (2004 SCR 36). Moreover, the accused- petitioners, after' registration of the case are behind the bars, whereas the investigation has been completed and the challan has also been submitted before the trial Court; therefore, they are no more required for investigation purpose and if the bail is cancelled and the accused-respondents are sent behind the bars and ultimately they are acquitted of the charge, then there will be no price for the agony they will suffer. Furthermore, the bail cannot be cancelled as a punishment. My aforesaid view finds support form a case reported as Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Sabir and 12 others (2011 SCR 126) wherein the following principle was laid down:-- "The Challan of the case was filed in the trial Court on 6th October, 2008. The accused are no more required by the Police for investigation. If the bail is cancelled and the accused respondents are sent behind the bars and ultimately they are acquitted, there will be no price for the agony they will suffer. The bail cannot be canceled as a punishment. This Court in a case tilted Ch. Muhammad Latif v. The State [PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 83] has observed as under: " It may be pointed out that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment as injunctions incarceration of a person without strong grounds cannot remedy the wrong done by keeping him confinement even if he is acquitted thereafter ..."
14. ' Therefore, no useful purpose will be served if the bail is cancelled or the accused-petitioners are kept in confinement. Thus, the trial Court has not exercised its discretion while disallowing bail to Mst. Naseema and Muhammad Nadeem, accused-petitioners; therefore, the impugned order to their extent is set-aside, whereas the impugned order to the extent of other accused-respondents, does not call for any interference by this Court.
15. ' As far as the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant are concerned, having quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case, do not render any help to him and it is well settled that each criminal case has to be dealt with on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
16. ' For the foregoing reasons, I accept the revision petition filed by the' accused-petitioners and allow them bail in sum of Rs, 5,00,.000/-each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. They shall be released from custody provided not required in any other case or offence. The revision petition filed by the complainant for cancellation of other accused-respondents stands dismissed. A copy of the judgment shall be annexed with other relevant file.