MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J. Having been named and held for questioning as an accused in case FIR No. 229/2021 dated 04.04.2021 charged under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109; 427, 353, 34, 337-D/337-F(iii), 338-C and 120-B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Lahor District Swabi, the petitioner Danish Khan Afridi son of Abdul Latif Afridi had earlier applied for post arrest bail before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Swabi where he failed to achieve the solicited relief. His unsuccessful attempt of getting bail is followed by this petition with similar prayer for his release through bail, notice whereof was given to the complainant Abdul Majid Afridi and the State.
2. The occurrence is reported by Abdul Majid Afridi son of Aftab Afridi with venue and reporting time as 19:00 hours. He recounted that his father Aftab Afridi then posted as Judge Anti-Terrorism Court- I at Swat had gone to Magsood Abad (Peshawar) to attend the marriage ceremony of Adnan Sami.
On his way back along with his family members Mst. Zainab Bibi (wife), Mst. Kirran (daughter in law/wife of complainant) and Muhammad Sanan (grandson), Police Guard constable Zakir on the driving seat and the police guard constable Daud on front seat were travelling through motorcar bearing Registration No. AA-4871/Peshawar (black in color) for Islamabad on motorway. That he i.e. the complainant with his maternal uncle son Zahoor Shahzad son of Shahzad Gul and aunt son Adil were following his father and family in another car bearing Registration No.4470. That when they reached the rest area {} near Swabi Interchange, it was 18:10 hours where they were chased by a white corolla car wherein Danish Khan Afridi (petitioner) and Jamal Afridi along with two other unknown accomplices were noticed and another car (black in color) moving Abid, Muhammad Shafiq and two other unknown persons, who could be identified, also chased and passed by them and they all resorted to indiscriminate firing upon the motorcar of his father. That besides his parents, wife and son, the driver and gunman on board the car fell prey to the blanket fire shots resulting into death of his entire family members while the driver and police guard received grave injuries. The complainant further described that amongst the deceased wife of complainant Mst.
Kiran had the gestation of about six months. The complainant holds Jamal RIO Maqsood Abad, Jaag Kaley presently in Germany and Abdul Latif Afridi resident of Hayatabad, Peshawar as co- perpetrators having abetted the felony.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner argued at length requesting the court to allow the petitioner and grant him the solicited relief on the ground of his false implication in the case. The learned counsel while striving to make a case for grant of bail on the stated grounds rely on the case of 2021 SCMR 2011 Resham Khan and another v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another, 2017 PCr.LJ 1092 Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State and 2 others. 2021 SCMR 63 Jahanzeb and others v. State through AG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and another 2021 SCMR 138 Sajid v. Samin ur Rehman (deceased) through his father and others, 2021 SCMR 1295 Saeed Yousaf v. The State and anther, 2021 SCMR 130 Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P. G Punjab and another, 2021 YLR 73 Abdul Rasheed v. The State. PLD 2021 Supreme Court 738 Muhammad Sarfaraz Ansari v. The State and others, PLD 2021 Supreme Court 927 Muhammad Arshad Nadeem v. The Stade, 2022 SCMR 419 Naeem Khan v. The State and others and 2022 SCMR 1998 Sikandar Hayat v. The State and another. Inversely the learned State Counsel assisted by learned private counsel opposed the petition. They were of the view that the entire family of the complainant not sparing even a minor and fetus have been put to death in a most inhuman manner where after the crime. the accused-petitioner also remained fugitive from law.
That petitioner has been charged for a heinous crime attracting capital punishment. They opposed the petition and in support of the arguments places reliance on PLD 1985 Supreme Court 402 Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others, PLD 2022 Islamabad 13 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State through Chairman NAB, 2012 SCMR 707 Muhammad Afzal v. The State, 2013 SCMR 385 Ghulam Ahmed Chishti v. The State and another, 2015 PCr.LJ 1083 Abdul Latif v. The State and another, 2020 PCr.LJ Note 195 Khan Afsar v. The Slate and another, 2019 YLR Note 76 Irian Ullah v.
The State and another, 2021 YLR 2185 Gul Baz v. The State and another, PLO 2021 Supreme Court 738 Muhammad Sarfaraz Ansari v. The State and another, 2021 PCr.LJ 195 Muhammad lrfan v.
The State and another and 2021 PCr.LJ 1811 Muhammad Sher Khan v. The State and another.
4. Arguments heard while record delved deep into with fair assistance of learned counsel for the parties and learned State Counsel.
5. In order to find out room and pave way for grant of bail making out a case for further inquiry on account of benefit of doubt at bail stage, learned counsel for petitioner tried to bring this case within the four descriptions. These versions are, firstly the contents of first information report secondly, the confessional statement of co-accused without naming the accused-petitioner thirdly, report of the motorway police officials and Rescue 1122 and fourthly, mobiles data collected by the Investigation Officer both of the complainant showing him remotely present at the relevant time of occurrence and indicating the accused-petitioner present in his office at Peshawar. In support of making out a case for grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry, there are affidavits of Barrister Sarwar Muzaffar Shah son of Muzaffar Shah, Sajeed Khan Afridi Advocate son of Hukam Khan and Tariq Afghan Advocate son of Rasheed Khan, amongst them Barrister Sarwar Muzaffar and Sajeed Khan Afridi, Advocates are accused-petitioner's counsels, who claim presence of accused petitioner at the relevant time in his office situated at Haroon Mansion Khyber Bazaar, Peshawar. The court has to take into account everything but it has also to keep appraisal of the record within the bounds permissible in the circumstances. The grounds bracketed as four versions, one making base for requesting grant of bail require immense caution to gauge their cogency for grant of bail which exercise could only be undertaken during trial or in other words dilating deep on the grounds raised during the arguments in support of the petitioner is also apprehended to affect case of either of the two opposing sides which is invariably to be avoided.
Yes, at times courts have stepped in a discourse involving prayer for bail on the basis of Alibi but this is not a constant practice for indulgence to grant such relief especially in a situation engulfing case of accused-petitioner who notwithstanding a practicing lawyer is shown absconding for more than eight months. At present on tentative assessment there is high risk to deliver any findings lest it would be highly detrimental not only for: the party who has suffered human losses of near and dear ones and at the same time for the petitioner may or may not be saddled for the most ghastly crime ever committed.
6. Irrespective of the role of accused- petitioner charged for attributing general firing and that no specific role has been attributed to him so assessment of a case for grant of bail isn't to be looked into in isolation of a single factor favorable but the court has to see, as to whether the link of a case at its initial stage would lead to a situation that prima-facie the accused-petitioner is linked in chain and the valued judgments as referred for reliance by the petitioner's counsel aren't attracted to the distinguishing circumstances of the case in hand for favorable consideration. This is happening in which a senior District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer of Anti-Terrorism Court Swat, his wife, pregnant daughter in law having FH 22 weeks (six months gestation pregnancy) and minor grandson have been mercilessly showered with bullets assassinating them and injuring police officials in a barbarous manner. The killers are like wild feral animals. The occurrence in the manner it happened is condemned as morally wrong even if it be outcome of personal blood feud vengeful hostile acts.
7. For the observations rendered in the preceding paras, the petitioner is not entitled for the solicited relief for the grant of bail hence, this bail petition stands dismissed.
8. It goes without saying that, the court inquired from the learned private counsel for complainant as to whether his side will have any objection on putting the case on the track for speedy trial, his response was in positive and submitted that the complainant would welcome early decision in the case. As long drawn trial is also not in favor of accused-petitioner being an under trial prisoner hence, the learned trial Court shall fix hearings in this case once in five days at least.
9. Copy of this order the transmitted to the learned trial court for compliance of the concluding directions vis-a-vis date of hearing in the case for early conclusion of trial.