MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner/accused along with his two sons was booked for the above offences vide FIR No,01/14 of Police Station Chilas dated 31.05.2014.
2. The Petitioner/accused applied for bail before the trial Court which was declined vide order dated 27.6.2015 and being dissatisfied from the verdict rendered by the learned trial Court the petitioner came to this Court for relief of bail.
3. All the necessary details have been given in the judgment under challenge, therefore, the whole details are not being given to be a little precise. However the gist of prosecution case is that on 31.5.2014 the petitioner/accused along with two of his real sons (now absconders) were .Sitting in ambush and when the deceased along with eye-witnesses namely Shakoor son of Mohibullah, Juma Gul son of Noor Said and Jam Pur son of Baseer and deceased Qalam Sher reached near the place of occurrence, random firing was opened by all the three accused and one shot hit at the head of deceased Qalam Sher, who got injured. Initially the FIR was lodged under section 324/34, P.P.C., but the offence of 324/34, P.P.C. Was converted into an offence under section 302, P.P.C. After demise of injured Qalam Sher. The motive was stated to be old enmity between the parties being favourite child of law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the case is false as the FIR has been lodged after one day of the occurrence and this delay has been consumed in deliberations and consultation. He further added that the deceased received only one fire shot at his head and there remains a room for further inquiry that whose shot proved fatal and hit the deceased.
Regarding recovery of weapon of offence the learned counsel submitted that it has been effected from the house of one Nadir Khan son of Haji Shakir resident of Batogah, but he has not been cited as a prosecution witness and I.O. Maliciously and dishonestly cited only two police officials as recovery witnesses, which is an apparent padding and the benefit of all the above anomalies should go to the petitioner/accused.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant and learned Addl. A.G. Stated at bar that it is day light occurrence and the petitioner/accused along with two of his real sons are directly charged in the FIR for opening indiscriminate firing on the deceased. As per learned counsel the cause of death mentioned in death certificate confirms the story advanced by the prosecution, moreover, the petitioner/accused became absconder and was arrested on 03-01- 2015 after conducting a raid and such a long abscondence disentitles him for grant of bail, which is normally not extended to absconder as two real sons of the .Petitioner/accused are still at large and if released on bail, it will amount to encourage the like minded criminals.
6. I have heard both the parties at length and gone through the available material collected during investigation. It is admitted fact that the petitioner/accused and two of his real sons are charged in FIR for opening firing on the deceased. No doubt that the deceased received only one fire shot injury but it is also available on record that crime empties of two different bores i.e, 7.62 mm and 303 have been recovered, from the place of occurrence and the same finds mentioned in site plan and site inspection report.
7. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it will be pre-mature to hold that the delay was consumed for cooking up a false story. This crucial point is to be determined/thrashed by the trial Court after recording of evidence and mere delay in lodging FIR, could not be made a ground for release of an accused on bail in an offence of murder, if a prima facie case is otherwise made out.
8. The petitioner/accused remained fugitive from law and was arrested after conducting a raid, whereas his two sons are still at large and enlarement of the petitioner/accused on bail at this stage would amount to grant of premium to an absconder, who loses normal rights guaranteed by substantive as well as by procedural law due to abscondence.
9. However, since the petitioner/accused is in jail since last over 1 year without any substantial progress in the trial. Therefore, I direct the learned trial Court to take up this case on day to day basis and complete the case within 90 days, after receipt of this order. The learned trial Court will issue necessary directions to 1.0. Of the case, who shall be present on each and every date of hearing and he will ensure the production of all the P.Ws. Before the Court on all the dates of hearing. The learned trial Court will not allow un-necessary adjournments to any of the parties. The directions of the Court should be followed in letter and spirit and in case of non-compliance, the petitioner/accused will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application if so advised.
10. With the above observations, the petition in hand is disposed of. File.