' On the basis of Marasila, dated 10th September, 1982, sent by S.H.O., P.S. Mirpur, who was on 1Gashal' and to whom Gulistan son of Ali Gohar made a report of the occurrence, case F.I.R. No,146 was registered on the same day under section 302, P.P.C. Against Chanzeb petitioner herein. The petitioner moved the two Courts below for the grant of bail but having failed, he has come to this Court with same request.
2. The facts of the case as they appear from the F.I.R. Are that the informant while coming to Abbottabad saw people collected in 'NuIla' near Banda Amlock where he also went and saw Jalil son of Khan Bahadur, his sister's son lying murdered. At the time of making of the first report however, no one was charged for the offence.
3. The local Police investigated the case and during investigation, on 12th September, 1982, Khan Bahadur, father of the deceased, charged the petitioner herein for committing the offence. The local Police also recorded the statements of Khalid Khan, Kamran and Sheikh lqbal. Their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Were also recorded by the Magistrate.
4. From the spot one glass made of copper and two 'rotis' wrapped in paper were also found which were taken into possession by the local Police. In the identification parade held on 19th September, 1982 Sheikh lqbal identified the glass which was recovered from the spot as belonging to him. The special feature enabling him to identify the glass, as stated in the report of the identification parade, were a few dents on the lower portion of the glass. Sheikh lqbal in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Stated that the glass was taken by Chanzeb petitioner from him at about 8 p.m.
On 9th September, 1982, with a promise to return the same next morning. He also stated that Chanzeb petitioner was accompanied by one other person having a small beard at that time, who also purchased 'Tikas and rotis' worth Rs,6.50. One Bashir was also examined by the Police who also stated that at about 8 p.m. On 9th September, 1982 Chanzeb petitioner and one other person had visited his hotel and although Chanzeb petitioner demanded Rs, 50 from him by way of loan but he paid to him Rs,10. Khalid Khan is Suzuki driver who has stated in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. That he took the petitioner, the deceased Jalil and one boy Kamran in his Suzuki to Havelian wherefrom on return Kamran got down from Suzuki at a petrol pump near village Langra and that after purchasing 'tikas' and 'rotis' from 'Tanchi Chauk' he took Jalil deceased and Chanzeb petitioner to 'Simla Pahari' wherefrom they went on 'katcha' road called 'Thamba' road were he left the petitioner and the deceased at a place near 'Kassi'. Kamran was also examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. And he has corroborated the version given by Khalid Khan.
5. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The case depends on last seen evidence and the circumstantial evidence collected by the police, which would be offered at the trial. From the evidence so far collected it is clear that the deceased was last seen in the company of Chanzeb, petitioner. When he was so seen it was late evening time and his dead body was found next day at a place at a distance of 140 paces from the place where Khalid Khan had left the petitioner and the deceased. From the spot 'rotis and glass were recovered. Sheikh lqbal has identified the glass to be his, which was taken from him on 9th September, 1982 at about 8 p.m. By Chanzeb petitioner.
6. Mr. Muhammad Ayub Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that since there is no eye-witness in this case and since the weapon of offence has neither been recovered nor stated by the witnesses to have been in possession of either the accused-petitioner or the deceased, the last seen evidence is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime. He submitted that this being a case of further enquiry, the petitioner may be released on bail.
7. It is true that the weapon of offence has not been recovered nor has been stated by the witnesses to have been in possession of either the petitioner or the deceased, but it is yet to be determined at the trial as to what would be the weapon of offence. This thing would be got clarified from the doctor who would give statement at the trial. This fact alone, in presence of last seen evidence, direct charge by the father of the deceased and the recoveries made from the spot connecting the accused with the crime, is not sufficient to entitle him to the concession of bail.
There is prima facie case of murder against the petitioner and that being so, I do not consider it a fit case in which discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioner. His bail application is, therefore, rejected. .