MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner has been booked for the offences under sections 436/457, P.P.C. vide FIR No.17/2019 registered at Police Station Jutial, District Gilgit.
2. The petitioner was refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment/order dated 22-04-2019 and petitioner being aggrieved from the said judgment/order has approached this Court for concession of post arrest bail by filing the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not charged in the FIR. There is no eye- witness of the occurrence and further that the petitioner is an incapacitated person, who cannot commit such like offence. The provisions of section 436, P.P.C. are not attracted in the case. The case of the present petitioner is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and he is entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel relied on 2008 PCr .LJ 1488 and 2013 MLD 140 .
4. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that no doubt that the petitioner is not charged in the FIR but during investigation sufficient incriminating material has been collected against the petiti oner. The petitioner was on bail and during facility of bail, he committed the offence of this heinous nature, which disentitles him for discretionary relief of the bail.
5. The petitioner is not charged in FIR and he was found involved in the commission of offence during investigation of the case. The petitioner was on bail in a case registered against him under section 440, P.P.C. vide FIR No.21/2019 and he committed the offence during the period, when he was on bail and thus he mis-used the concession of bail. The offence under section 436, P.P.C. entails the punishment of imprisonment for life and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. One of the criteria for refusal of bail in the offences even not falling within prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C., is that if there is a chance that accused will repeat the offence the court may refuse the bail. The present petitioner committed a more heinous offence, than the earlier one, in which he was allowed bail. The petitioner has been charged for commission of the offence by PW Muhammad Yaqub and Aziz ur Rehman in their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. on the following day of occurrence.
6. There is no merit in the instant petition, which is declined accordingly .