MUIYAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.- Petitioner Amir Badshah, who is involved in case FIR No. 33 dated 22.03.2022 u/s 302 PPC of P.S Lal Qilla, District Dir Lower, has approached to this Court through instant petition for his post arrest bail. Earlier, he had filed bail application before the learned lower forum which was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2023.
2. The report has been lodged by complainant Rahim Badshah on 22.03.2022 to the effect that on the same day his brother Saeed Badshah was proceeding to his home after performing Maghrib prayer when in the meanwhile at 18:50 hours the present petitioner fired at him due to which Saeed Badshah got hit and died on the spot.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The present petitioner has been charged for murder of his own father in prosecution of the motive of several domestic disputes. Admittedly, complainant Rahim Badshah, who is brother of the deceased, is not an eye-witness of the occurrence as at the time of occurrence he was present in his house situated at village Doba. It is also an admitted fact that the occurrence has remained unwitnessed as no one has been mentioned in the FIR as eyewitness of the occurrence. Though widow of the deceased namely Haseena, who is step-mother of the present petitioner, has charged him for murder of the deceased but the allegation so leveled by her is in the nature as emerging from the FIR. It appears that the petitioner has been charged on the basis of his previous civil disputes with the deceased, however, on the mentioned ground liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed when there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, while the source of information regarding involvement of the petitioner in murder of his father has neither been disclosed by complainant in the FIR nor by widow of the deceased in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Veracity of the said statement will be determined by trial Court after recording the evidence, till then the case of petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail in the circumstances.
Wisdom is taken from "Nouman Khan alias Roman Vs. The State and others" (2020 SCMR 666).
5. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has been charged for murder of his own father and such like occurrences rarely happen in the society, however, superior Courts have laid down principles for deciding bail matters. For safe administration of justice, the Court has to stay within the four corners of the law and must not be swayed by emotions or its own understanding of justice as in doing so he would fail to reach at a right conclusion in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard may be placed on "Majid Ali Vs. The State and another" (2022 PCr.LJ 981 Islamabad) wherein it has been observed that: Term "reason to believe" can be classified at a higher pedestal than mere suspicion and allegation but not equivalent to proved evidence---Even the strongest suspicion cannot transform in "reason to believe"--- Criteria laid down seems to be that where some tangible evidence is available against the accused which, if left un-rebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt.
Similarly, the offence the accused is charged with, though entails capital punishment but bail cannot be refused to an accused merely on the mentioned ground when otherwise his case is one of further inquiry. Reliance in this regard is placed on "Manzoor and others Vs. The State" (PLD 1972 S.C 81) wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has held that: It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run.
Further reliance is placed on "Zaigham Ashraf Vs. The State" (2016 SCMR 18).
6. Likewise, mere heinous nature of crime will not disentitle an accused to the concession of bail when ultimate conviction, if any, could repair the wrong caused by the mistaken relief of bail. In this regard I would refer "Muallim Vs. State" (2021 YLR 841 Peshawar) and "Nasir Aziz and another Vs. The State" (2020 YLR 1429 Peshawar). Instant petition was also resisted on the ground of conduct of the petitioner as he not only did not participate in the funeral rites of his father but disappeared from the scene for about fifteen months. Though abscondence of an accused can be considered as corroborative evidence in criminal cases for refusal of bail to accused but only in the situation when there are reasonable grounds in light of evidence on record for his prima facie involvement in commission of offence, which are not available in the present case. It is settled law that mere abscondence of accused person may not be sufficient to refuse bail to him and in a case calling for further inquiry into the guilt of accused, bail is to be allowed to him as of right and not by way of grace or concession. Wisdom is taken from "Ehsan Ullah Vs. The State" (2012 SCMR 1137).
7. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (two hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
8. Above are the reasons of my short order of the even date.