RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Shariat Court on 14-10-2013, whereby while accepting the revision petitions filed by the accused- respondents, herein, they have been granted the concession of bail.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a case under sections 302, 34 and 109, A.P.C. Was registered against the accused-respondents at Police Station Islam-garh on the complaint of Tabrez Iqbal. It was reported that he is resident of Islam-garh. On the night falling between 2/3-3-2013 at about 1- 30 a.m., he along with his uncle came back to home after attending a religious ceremony. They knocked at the door upon which Jamrez Iqbal, the younger brother of the complainant, opened it.
Thereafter, they went to sleep. At about 7-00 a.m., his mother awakened the complainant up and asked about Jamrez Iqbal. The complainant told that he might have gone with his uncle, Javed Iqbal. At 7-30 a.m., Javed Iqbal called him up and told that why Jamrez Iqbal was not responding to his telephonic call. The complainant told him that he is not present in the house since morning.
His younger brother Junaid told him that at about Fajar prayer, he had heard the voice of opening of the door of the room of Jamrez Iqbal but thought that he might have left for offering Fajar prayer.
They started searching for him and about 10-30 a.m., found his dead-body lying in a 'Nala'. Qaiser Iqbal informed his uncle, Javed Iqbal who also came there and thereafter they reported the matter to the Police. Zahoor Ahmed, Ali Nawaz, Haq Nawaz and Saqib Ali were nominated as suspects, while Zafar Iqbal was alleged for abetment.
3. During the course of investigation, Mst. Sonia Bibi and Sughra. Bibi were apprehended by the Police. Accused-respondent No, 1, moved an application for grant of bail after arrest before the District Criminal Court, Mirpur on 22-3-2013, which was rejected vide order dated 4-5-2013.
Accused-respondent No, 2 also moved an application for grant of bail after arrest in the District Criminal Court on 14-5-2013, which was also rejected vide order dated 4-6-2013. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-respondents, herein, filed two separate revision petitions before the learned Shariat Court. The learned Shariat Court vide impugned judgment dated 14-10-2013, accepted the revision petitions filed by the accused-respondents and they were allowed to be released on bail.
4. Mr. Kamran Tariq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, submitted that the learned Shariat Court has not exercised its discretion in a judicious manner, while extending the concession of bail to the accused-respondents, who were fully involved in a heinous offence of murder. He further argued that the concession of bail cannot be extended to a person who was duly nominated in the FIR with a specific role. He averred that all the accused are liable and equally responsible for committing the offence of murder. The learned counsel submitted that the Shariat Court while making the deeper appreciation of the material available on the record accepted the revision petitions filed by the accused-respondents and ordered to release them on bail. He contended that although, accused-respondent No, 2 was not nominated in the FIR but during the investigation, she was implicated in the case on the statement of the co-accused. He argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., are also part of the record, which have been overlooked by the learned Shariat Court, while passing the impugned judgment. The learned Shariat Court failed to take into account that the accused-respondents shared the common intention with other co-accused and made a plan in furtherance of their common object and committed the murder of Jamrez Iqbal. He further argued that the accused- respondents also tried to destroy the evidence of the prosecution, while washing the blood stained clothes. He contended that the learned Shariat Court totally ignored the well recognized principle of law that there can be no murder without a victim. The learned counsel forcefully argued that Sughra Begum, accused-respondent, voluntarily made the confessional statement before the Magistrate in which she has categorically admitted that after the occurrence, she tried to destroy the evidence of the murder by washing the blood stained clothes of the co-accused. He argued that the evidence is admissible under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 but this important aspect of the case remained overlooked by the learned Shariat Court, while granting the concession of bail to the accused-respondents. He argued that the learned Shariat Court, while recording the findings made the deeper appreciation of evidence, wrongly observed in para 7 of the impugned judgment that Mst. Sonia Bibi, accused-respondent was having illicit relations with the deceased and she invited him at her home. He further argued that the learned Shariat Court has not adhered to the law on the subject that such like observation can prejudice the case of the prosecution.
5. On the other hand, Raja Inamullah Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents, has strongly controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, while submitting that the learned Shariat Court has passed the order after tentative assessm ent of the facts and circumstances. He argued that it is a case of blind murder and of circumstantial evidence which is a weakest type of evidence. He further argued that Mst.
Sonia Bibi, accused-respondent, was not nominated in the FIR and she was implicated in the case after due deliberation. He averred that the allegation levelled against Mst. Sonia Bibi, accused- respondent that she invited the deceased at her home was not established by any convincing evidence. The learned counsel submitted that there was no proof on the record regarding the allegations levelled against the accused-respondents that they had tried to destroy the prosecution evidence. The learned counsel referred to the memo. Of recovery of the bloodstained clothes, while stating that nothing has been found on the clothes rather the same have been washed after the occurrence. He submitted that once bail has been granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there must be some strong and exceptional reasons for its cancellation. He lastly argued that the learned Shariat Court has rightly exercised its discretion in a judicious manner, while extending the concession of bail to the accused-respondents.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available. On the night falling between 2/3-3-2013 at about 1-30 a.m., he along with his uncle came back to home after attending a religious ceremony. The occurrence took place on the same night at about 1-30 a.m. Mst. Sonia Bibi, accused-respondent was implicated in the case on the statement of Sughra Bibi, accused. She appeared before the Magistrate and stated that Sughra Bibi, accused, abetted the co-accused in destroying the prosecution evidence by washing the blood-stained clothes. It is premature to judge at this stage whether the statement of Sughra Bibi, accused can be used against A the other co-accused as it makes the case one of further probe and inquiry. As the only allegation levelled against Sughra Begum, accused- respondent is that she tried to destroy the prosecution evidence. The question whether she shared the common intention with other co-accused, cannot be determined on the basis of the evidence available on record as the deeper appreciation is not warranted under law while dealing with the bail matter.
7. The reasons assigned by the learned Shariat Court while extending the concession of bail to the accused-respondents are convincing in nature, which do not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned Shariat Court has exercised its discretion in a judicious manner. The challan has already been presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it has been settled by the superior Courts that the principles for grant of bail and cancellation of the same are quite different. As we have observed in the preceding para that once bail has been granted, same cannot be cancelled unless it is found that the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Reliance can be placed on a case reported as Azmatullah v. The State [2012 PCr.LJ 1973], in which this Court has held as under:-- "7. It is celebrated principle of law that while deciding a bail application only a bird -eye view has to be made and deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted under law. The Court has only to see the allegations levelled in the FIR and the material collected by the prosecution during the investigation. In the record available, the element of mala fide on the part of prosecution cannot be ruled out. The prima facie story of the prosecution seems to be doubtful. It is also consistent view of all the superior Courts that if an element of doubt is there, that can be extended to the accused even at bail stage."
The Court is not expected to probe deep into merits of the prosecution case as has been laid down in a titled Mukhtar Hussain and another [2005 SCR 29] wherein it has been observed as under:-- ".... Before discussing the merits of the present case let us make it clear that while considering a bail application, the Court has to look tentatively the facts and circumstances of the case. In order to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist or not, the Court is not expected to probe deep into merits of the prosecution case rather it ascertains as to whether some tangible evidence is available against the accused which if left unattended may lead to inference of his guilt."
The accused-respondents are no more required for further investigation, therefore, it would be fruitless to send them behind the bars for which no useful purpose can be served.
The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the Shariat Court which has been passed after attending all the questions involved in the case.
Resultantly, finding no force in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.