Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J.- A case in the offences under sections 302, 201, 109 and 34, APC was registered against Zahid, Adnan and Asmatullah at Police Station, Leepa on 10.08.2022. According to the version of the complainant, the incident occurred when he was at home and one Shabbir informed him that the aforementioned accused had launched an assault on his cousin, Muhammad Manzoor, alias Zahoor, wherein the victim sustained injuries. In response to this information, the complainant promptly arrived at the scene. It was further stated that Zahid, one of the accused, struck at Manzoor's head with a blunt object, leading to severe injuries. Meanwhile, Adnan and Asmatullah, the other accused, joined in by using sticks to inflict injuries on the injured, Manzoor, while targeting various parts of his body. The incident was purportedly witnessed by multiple individuals, including the complainant, Muhammad Shabbir, Javed Khan, and other local residents. The underlying motive behind this incident is believed to be rooted in a familial disagreement. After registration of the case, the accused moved bail application before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Jhelum Valley on 14.01.2023. The application was accepted to the extent of accused, Adnan, vide order dated 25.01.2023. The remaining accused filed a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court (High Court), which has been partly accepted to the extent of accused, Asmatullah and Mumtaz Bibi, whereas, the revision petition to the extent of accused, Zahid, stood dismissed.
2. Against the order of the High Court the accused, Zahid, has filed the titled appeal seeking release on bail, whereas, in revision petition, the complainant-petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Asmatullah and Mumtaz Bibi.
3. Mr. Muhammad Saghir Javed, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Zahid, argued the case at some length. He submitted that the appellant has got a fit case for grant of bail in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in various pronouncements, but the learned Courts below failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter. He argued that the medical report in this case is tempered one. He forcefully argued that the prosecution has cited two eye witnesses i.e., Muhammad Shabbir and Raja Javed Khan. In their Court statements, these witnesses have not supported the prosecution version narrated in the FIR and they have also negated their statements recorded under sections 161, Cr.P.C. He submitted that the story narrated in the FIR, statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the statements before the trial Court create serious doubts and if there is a slightest doubt the benefit of same must be extended in favour of the accused even at the bail stage. The learned counsel further submitted that in the light of statements of the eye witnesses the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, hence, grant of bail is fully justified in this case.
4. Raja Shujaat Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the judgments recorded by the Courts below are well-reasoned. At bail stage the deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. He further argued that in the FIR a specific role is attributed to the accused, Zahid i.e. causing injury at the head of deceased with stick/danda and according to the postmortem report the doctor opined that the head injury lead to the death. So far as the statements of the eye witnesses are concerned, the referred witnesses have made the things clear in the cross-examination, hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is not of worth consideration. While arguing in revision petition, the learned counsel submitted that all the accused actively participated in the occurrence, hence, the learned High Court erred in law while granting bail to them. He prayed for cancellation of bail to their extent. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case reported as 2017 YLR 1238.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The accused, Zahid, Adnan, and Asmatullah are nominated in a case registered against them in the offences under sections 302, 201, 109 and 34, APC. The role attributed to Zahid is that he inflicted stick blows at the head of the deceased, whereas, the other accused inflicted injuries at different parts of body of the deceased. After registration of FIR, the accused applied for bail which was allowed only to the extent of accused, Adnan, however, the learned High Court also released Asmatullah and Mumtaz Bibi on bail. The accused, Zahid, has filed the titled appeal for grant of bail, whereas, the revision petition has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the other accused.
6. There is no second thought that at bail stage the Court is not expected to go into deeper appreciation of evidence rather the Court has to make tentative assessment of the material i.e. F.I.R., statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and version of accused, if any, however, a perusal of the record shows that the prosecution has cited two eye witnesses in the challan i.e., Muhammad Shabir and Raja Javed Khan. The eye witness, Raja Javed Khan, deposed before the Court as follows:- In cross-examination, he deposed that:- The other eye witness, Muhammad Shabbir, deposed that:- It is clear that the role attributed to the accused could not be supported and explained by the aforementioned eye witnesses. The eye witnesses have not deposed that they have seen the accused, Zahid, while inflicting blow on the head of the deceased. It makes the case one of the further inquiry. According to statutory provisions and principle of administration of criminal justice, especially, the factors to be considered for grant of bail, the question of further inquiry is always given due importance. If it appears from the tentative assessment of the material of the case that the matter requires further inquiry regarding establishment of the commission of offence against the accused, the concession of bail can be extended.
7. In view of the above, while accepting the appeal filed by the accused, Zahid, he is released on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond of rupees one million and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jhelum Valley. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
8. So far as the revision petition is concerned, no specific role is attributed to Mumtaz Bibi and she was not nominated in FIR rather arrested on the allegation that she abetted the offence.
Furthermore, the role attributed to the other accused, Asmtaullah, is similar to that attributed to Adnan who has already been granted bail by the trial Court, hence, the learned High Court has committed no illegality while releasing them on bail. Even otherwise, the case of the Mumtaz Bibi and Asmtaullah is at lesser footing as compared to accused, Zahid. Therefore, we have no hesitation in dismissing the revision petition.