MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner was booked for the above offences vide FIR No,78 of 2015 registered at Police Station City, Gilgit.
2. The precise story of the occurrence as narrated in the FIR is that the complainant Shujah Alam, Ijaz Alam. (now deceased) and his cousin Arshad Wali son of Muhammad Wali were going in a car to attend a Walima. When they reached near Khomer Chowk, deceased received a call on his cell phone and the deceased told that he was being called by present petitioner and his father Khushlim Jan his father in law in Nasim Chowk, and despite of restraining by the complainant no to go there, he de-boarded from the car and left from there, for Nasim Chowk. After about one hour one Usman son of Haider Aman, who was among the people attending walima received a call that deceased has been murdered in a street of Madina hotel. The motive of the occurrence was stated that about 9 years ago the nikah of deceased was performed with the sister of petitioner but Rukhsati did not took place. The deceased brought his wife to his house without consent of her parents, which was a cause of annoyance in the mind of his in laws and the petitioner and his father were extending threats of killing to deceased. The complainant stated that he is sure that the murder has been committed by the present petitioner and his father Khushlim Jan. The murder has been committed in dark hours of night by these two accused and they have tried to turn the occurrence into a sectarian one.
3. After registration of the case, the petitioner and his father were arrested by the local police. Co- accused Khushlim Jan was allowed bail by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No,1 and in the meanwhile the case was transferred from the Court of Anti Terrorism to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit.
4. The petitioner applied for bail after arrest in the trial Court which was refused vide order dated 04.07.2016, and being dissatisfied from the said order the petitioner has approached this Court for concession of bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at bar that there is no worth reliance evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and last seen evidence of PW Amir Khan, even if believed would not be sufficient to sustain conviction on a capital charge. The learned counselfurthersubmitted that circumstantial evidence is a weak type of evidence and the prosecution prima facie failed to connect and establish all the chain. which are pre-requisite for relying on circumstantial evidence. . The learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner is one of the further inquired and he is entitled for the grant of bail. The learned counsel relied on 1988 PCr.LJ 288, 1998 M LD 2059, 2001 PCr.LJ 70, 2003 YLR 3185, 2008 PCr.LJ 564 and 7013 PCr.LJ 765.
6. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G, refuted the arguments raised at bar by the learned defence counsel and stated that the petitioner and his father are directly charged in the FIR, wherein a natural story of the occurrence has been narrated. Recovery of weapon of offence has been effected from the accused/ petitioner on his pointation and there is a positive report of Forensic Expert, which also corroborates the case of prosecution. The postmortem report also reflects that the death was caused by a fire arm injuries and a 30 bore pistol has been recovered on the pointation of the petitioner in the presence of marginal witnesses. The learned Dy.A.G, prays that since a prima facie case is established against the accused, he should not be released on bail, as he ruined the future of his own sister and her kids in a callous and barbaric murder. The learned Dy.A.G, relied on 2002 SCM R 1876 and 1995 PCr.LJ 1494.
7. I have heard both the parties at length and record of the case perused with the able assistance of both the parties.
8. An accused desirous of getting himself enlarged on bail should in all possibility draw his case within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C, in such a way which may drop an inkling that the connection of the offence and offender is one which requires "further inquiry" it is only after that when discretion of Court will come into play, it has been a cherished notion of the safer administration of justice that even a matter of pure discretion is to be resolved in such a manner which should depict the drift of discretion in a judicious manner, strengthened by the mortar of good conscience and fair play, discretion although seems unfettered, but it is not unbridled at all, since the same cannot be exercised in oblivion to the nature, intensity, impact and the possible aftershocks of an offence. The instant FIR prima facie lays the foundation of such a cold blooded callous murder against the accused, which bereaved his real sister of her shelter, robbed his nephews of all their innocent dreams, which they might have dreamt while grabbing the finger on their deceased father, the accused has thrown them in thorough economic solitude, in a continuous vicious circle of pain and miseries, where all their desires will be circumvented to the only wish of living their lives one way or the other. Had this all occurred carrying a strong motive behind, even than he could not win any favour from the Court, but the way he executed his nefarious design for an act of deceased committed by him a decade before whereby he took his legally wedded wife without giving his in laws a chance to celebrate the doomed departure of their daughter, the accused and all his family acquiesced in the act of deceased and quite inconceivably the accused ruined the future of his sister's family by squandering the death knell of a person who was non else but pride/refuge of his sister's progeny and a comfortable sanctuary, for them in face of taking hardships of life, motive of this case is not a reason rather a mockery of sanctity of human life and relations, judicial discretion runs counter to the relief of bail in such like cases.
In the circumstances of the case, I hereby dismiss the bail application of the accused/petitioner.