ABDUL FAYAZ J; Petitioner Khalid son of Javed r/o Sheikh Abad, Rajar, Tehsil and District Charsadda, seeks his release on bail in case registered vide FIR No. 558 dated 09.04.2025 under sections 302, 109, 34 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 of Police Station City (Charsadda) on refusal of bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge MCTC, Charsadda vide order dated 12.07.2025.
2. Brief but relevant facts of the case as per the contents of FIR are that complainant Mst. Nargis widow of Rashid Iqbal, reported the matter to the local Police at casualty of DHQ, Hospital Charsadda to the effect that her son namely Hussain Sunny Iqbal upon the call of Khalid, (the present accused/petitioner), came to village Rajjar. Respondent No. 2 also deposed that she was present in her house, received information about the murder of her son, who was shifted to the hospital. That she rushed to the hospital, in the meanwhile she came to know that her son was done to death by present accused/petitioner with firearm weapon, on the abetment of co-accused Saeed and Qamar Zaman. Motive behind the occurrence was disclosed as dispute over women folk. The report was reduced into writing consequently case vide above referred FIR was registered; hence, the instant bail petition.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused with their able assistance.
4. From the perusal of record, it reveals that Junaid was Juvenile and Saeed was given the role of abetment. The role of the present accused/petitioner is different from others accused who have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.05.2025, in Cr. Misc B.A No. 1328- P/2025 titled "Junaid and other versus State". Relevant abstract from order dated 30.05.2025 is reproduced below for ready reference; - "As per the contents of FIR, both the accused petitioners have been attributed different role as such, the case of accused/petitioner Junaid is taken for discussion first. Perusal of record would reveal that the complainant in her report has clearly stated that she was in her house at Rawalpindi when received information regarding the occurrence, as such, she is not eye witness of the occurrence.
Though she has brought charge against the accused but could not disclose the source of information/her satisfaction. During investigation, no independent person has come forward to charge the accused/petitioner for firing and committing the murder of the deceased. In the site plan, the necessary details regarding presence of accused and deceased are missing. Counsel for petitioner referred to the date sheet of SSC (9Th Class) examination and stated that on the day of occurrence, petitioner was busy in his paper and has never committed the offence.
Though a 30 more pistol has been shown recovered from possession of accused petitioner, which was found matched with three out of five empties of 30 bore recovered from the spot, however, such report of the expert is a corroborative piece of evidence and the same by itself cannot be held as conclusive proof of guilt of an accused person "Zeeshan versus The state 2012 SCMR 428". In such state of affairs, his case calls for further inquiry into his guilt."
5. Perusal of FIR reveals that respondent No. 2/ Mst. Nargis, (mother of deceased Hussain) herself deposed that;- "it was accused Khalid son of Javed r/o Sheikh Abad Rajjar who had invited the deceased to his village Sheikh Abad, where his dead body was found."
This Court also relied upon the case titled "Rashid Begum versus Abdul Rashid" reported in 1990 SCMR 579". Relevant abstract is reproduced below for ready re ference ; - "Leave was granted to consider as to "whether the order dated 3-12-1988 passed by the High Court releasing Abdur Rashid respondent on bail, in the facts and circumstances of this case, satisfies the well-established practice of the superior Courts regarding release on bail of accused involved in cases of murder.
The appeal came up for hearing today. The appellant is present in person. Assistant Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State and straightway supported the plea of the appellant for cancellation of bail.
As the accused has been remanded to custody, he separately moved application (Cr. M.P. I42- R/89) for hail.
The appeal of Mst. Rashid Begum and the application for bail on behalf of Abdul Rashid respondent ate being decided by this judgment.
We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondent who supported the impugned order of the Lahore High Court.
According to the learned counsel, the discretion exercised by the High Court called upon for no interference.
Respondent Abdul Rashid is involved in a murder case. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. Prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence which consists of the statement of Muhammad Aslam made by him before the police on 7-9-1988; recovery of hatchet from the respondent; statements of Javed Akhtar and Muhammad Khan made by them on 5-6-1988 before the police where they stated that they saw the respondent and co-accused Riaz throwing something in the canal on the night of occurrence. The deceased was killed by strangulation.
In the statement of Muhammad Aslant, it is alleged that the respondent borrowed a Prima which he used for the murder of Zaheer Ahmad.
This being a case of circumstantial evidence, it should have been left for the trial Court to examine the evidentiary value of such evidence.
It is not a fit case where respondent was entitled to the concession of bail. The appeal is allowed.
Bail is cancelled.
The petition moved on behalf of the respondent being without merit is. hereby dismissed."
6. Yet in another case reported 1986 SCMR 1978 titled "Muhammad Rafiq versus Abdur Rahman", wherein the apex Court cancelled the bail, allowed in the High Court, which is reproduced as under; - it is, however, now settled law that although the reports of the investigating officers are not binding on the Courts, they can be taken into consideration at bail stage in deciding as to whether or not the accused are entitled to the grant of bail. We have gone through the Zimnis and the reports of the three investigating officers named above. We notice that a large number of witnesses from both sides were examined by the investigating officers. The investigation had to be transferred from one officer to another, (two of whom were officers of superior rank, namely, Additional S.P. and the S.P. of the Crimes Branch) because of allegation of partiality being made against the police. The first named two officers have stated in their reports that the case was a complicated one, but Major Muhammad Arif S.P., Crimes Branch has stated that it is a case of blind murder, in other words, a murder-case which, had not been witnessed by anyone. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there appears to be some force in the view because all the three eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. are closely related to the deceased. Muhammad Rafiq P.W. is his father while the remaining two are his uncles. The presence of all of them at the spot at the time of occurrence, in the middle of the night, appears to be rather doubtful. As rightly observed by the learned High Court Judge "if the eye-witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time then there is nothing to link the petitioners (respondents before us) with the death of the deceased". We therefore feel that the learned High Court Judge had properly exercised his discretion with regard to respondents Abdul Rahman, Muhammad Bashir, Ahmad Din, Zafar, Rashid, Nazir Ahmad and Majeed. The same however cannot be said with regard to Abdul Qayum (respondent No. 2 in P. S. L. A. 453 of 1978). As stated in the F.I.R. it is he who had gone to the house of Rafiq complainant and informed the mother of the deceased that some persons were stealing their wheat. He was already known to Mst. Asghari (the mother of the deceased) as a friend of her son. The petitioner's counsel therefore contended that there is additional evidence about the identity of Abdul Qayum respondent. As stated by Major Muhammad Arif S.P., Crimes Branch in his report, it is probably a blind case i.e. a case in which the actual occurrence had not been witnessed by anyone. As such the identity of the assailant who joined Abdul Qayum in the murder might be doubtful but, for the reasons mentioned above, on the material available at present, there would be no doubt about the identity of Abdul Qayum respondent.
We, therefore, convert Criminal Petition No. 453 of 1978 into an appeal and accept it to the extent that the bail granted to Abdul Qayum alias Haji by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated the 10th of October 1978, is cancelled. The petition qua Abdur Rahman is however dismissed. We may however mention that the above-noted observations made by us about Abdul Qayum respondent, relate only to the question of bail, and would have no hearing on the merits of the case which would be decided by the learned trial Court on the evidence recorded by it."
7. This Hon'ble Court in similar nature case dismissed the bail plea of the accused vide Cr. Misc B.A No. 116-B of 2025 titled "Usman Khan versus State" decided on 11.04.2025 and held that: "Thus the petitioner was charged in supplementary statement by the complainant supported by the last seen evidence recorded by the mother of deceased coupled with the medical evidence and the punishment provided by the Statute i.e. death or imprisonment for life. Hence the petitioner is prima facie linked with the commission of offence, so at this state he is not entitled to the concession of bail"
8. Thus, what has been discussed above and in the light of dicta of apex Court referred above, the plea of the accused/petitioner is hereby dismissed.