WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---On his failure to obtain bail from the learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court, Peshawar vide order dated 08.04.2017, petitioner Muhammad Khalid who is accused in case FIR No. 368 dated 08.07.2014, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Sarband, Peshawar, has come to this Court for his release on bail.
2.Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and available record perused with their able assistance.
3. It appears from the record available on file that in this case the occurrence took place on 08.07.2014 at 2140 hours, while the report has been lodged on the same date at 2340 hours. Feroz Shah is the complainant of present case, and he has charged the unknown culprits initially, but, later on vide his statement recorded on 16.03.2017 under section 164, Cr.P.C. he nominated the accused/petitioner Muhammad Khalid for the murder of Faisal and Hayat Muhammad, however, in the FIR affective role of firing has been attributed to unknown persons. Here this aspect of the case cannot be overruled that the occurrence took place on 08.07.2014, while complainant charged the accused/ petitioner in his statement recorded on 05.01.2015 which is after lapse of 05 months and 27 days. Similarly other injured persons also charged the accused/ petitioner in their statement recorded on 16.03.2017 and 'that too' after long considerable delay of 02-Years, 08 Months and 08- days, on the basis of developed false story.
4.Moreover, in the present case the 4 occurrence took place on 08.07.2014 at 2140 hours, whereas, the report has been lodged on the same date at 2340 hours. On the face of it there is considerable delay of two hours in lodging the FIR by the respondent/complainant who was present with the deceased at the time of {{URDU TEXT}}
5. From the perusal of record it reveals that in the FIR no one was charged by name. No doubt in the present incident five persons sustained injuries and two were died, but, even then the injury on their persons do not commensurate with the number of accused who as per version of the prosecution were armed with Kalashnikovs and that on seeing them they all started indiscriminate firing with intention to kill them and which fact alone takes their case to that of further enquiry, because except these statements there is nothing on record to connect him with the crime.
Neither recovery/discovery was affected from the accused/petitioner nor he confessed his guilt before competent authority.
6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is scope of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused/petitioner. Therefore bail petition in hand is accepted and the accused/ petitioner is admitted to bail provided that he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 7.Above were the reasons of short order of even date.