' The petitioner is facing trial under section 302, A. P. C., on the charge of murder. Of Muhammad Bashir deceased. He seeks his release on bail on the following grounds :-
(i) that in presence of inconsistent statements of Nadir Ali, father of the deceased, the prosecution's allegation rests on inconsistent and contradictory version ;
(ii) that the cause of death is not free from doubt ; and
(iii) that the medical evidence, by itself, is not sufficient to connect the accused with the liability.
' The plea of bail was supported by reference to PLD 1979 Quetta 148, 1975 P Cr. L J 1270 and 1330, PLD 1972 SC 277 and 1981 P Cr. L J 882. Mr. Rafique Mahmood Khan, the learned Additional Advocate- General opposed the prayer for bail in the light of the heinous nature of offence ascribed to the accused-petitioner. Reference was made to PLD 1982 SC (A J & K) 100.
2. The incident took place on 1st July, 1983 at 9-15 a. m. The place of incident is the forest known as `Tanday Ka Par', situate in Dhoke Androoth, village Tarala. It is alleged that Muhammad Bashir deceased and Muhammad Azam, accused-petitioner left for hunting. They were in possession of 12-bore gun. The accused-petitioner was attributed firing on the deceased with 12-bore gun, resulting in death. Nadir Ali, father of the deceased, filed an application before the S. D. M. Sehnsa and made statement to the effect that his son received fatal injury by accident, as such no one was responsible for the death. He was allowed by the S. D. M., in the light of the request, to bury the deceased without conducting post-mortem. Subsequently, on the application of elder brother of the deceased, the Police initiated investigation and collected material to fix the liability of murder on the petitioner. The petitioner moved for bail before the trial Court but his prayer was refused by the learned Sessions Judge on 17th instant.
3. The rule of bail is that a person accused of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, is not to be released in presence of reasonable grounds for believing that he was guilty of such offence. However, the rule was subject to exceptions contained under the proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Further provides that when it appears to the Court that there are sufficient grounds to enquire into the guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail. In the instant case, the accepted position is that the accused-petitioner accompanied the deceased for hunting. The deceased received fatal injury from the gun of the accused. On immediate arrival of the witnesses, on spot, the accused- petitioner was seen standing with gun in his hand, near the deceased. These facts, prima facie, reflect reasonable grounds connecting the accused-petitioner with the liability. The accused, before the Police as well as in his statement under section 242, Cr. P. C. Denied the allegation. At this stage, an argument was addressed that in presence of earlier statement of Nadir Ali, the petitioner cannot be held responsible, in any manner, for the death. It is correct that in his earlier statement, Nadir All fixed no liability on the accused-petitioner but the fact remains that in that statement, it was disclosed that the deceased left for hunting in the company of the accused- petitioner and that the fatal injury was caused by the gun of the petitioner. Nadir Ali was not an eye-witness of the incident. He arrived on the scene at a late stage, whereas Nazarat Hussain alias Kala, Muhammad Almas, Muhammad Jamil and Sardar Kamal Khan were shown to have arrived immediately after the incident. Nazarat Hussain was the first to arrive on the scene and he was followed by Muhammad Almas, Muhammad Jamil and Sardar Kamal Khan. The statements of the witnesses equally suggest presence of the accused-petitioner at the place of occurrence. He was also shown in possession of gun on arrival of the witnesses. The ocular evidence collected by the investigating agency, coupled with medical evidence, prima facie, negate the objection raised in support of release of the petitioner. The ballisti expert, in his report, disclosed that the firing-pin of the gun, the weapon of offence, had been broken. In view of the condition of the gun, no test empty could be prepared by the expert for the purpose of its comparison With the crime empty. It is undenied that fatal injury was caused by the gun of the accused. Medical report shows that distance between the victim and assailant is 6-12 feet. The facts enumerated above, prim facie, suggest that no further inquiry is necessary so as to fix the liability. Likewise, the previous statement of Nadir Ali who was not an eyewitness, is not considered material to raise doubt so much so to give benefit of such doubt in the shape of bail to the petitioner. It is a settled rule that cases of criminal jurisdiction are decided in the light of facts of each case. The precedents do not provide general doctrine but, only guiding principles and such principles are applied to each case in there light of its own peculiar facts. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner rest on different facts and those facts are not found close to the facts of the case in hand, as such the authorities are not found helpful to the case of the petitioner. Contrarily, the facts of Shabbir Hussain's case PLD 1982 SC (A J & K) 100 relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate-General, are found comparatively close and almost identical to the facts of the case in hand. In Shabbir Hussain's case, Muhammad Rashid was killed by a gunshot injury. His mother made a report to the Police that the death occurred by accident, as much no action was desired. An application was moved before the Magistrate that the death having been occurred accidentally, post-mortem of the dead body should not be conducted. The prayer was allowed and the burial of the deceased was allowed without post-mortem. The father of the deceased who happened to be in England at the time of incident, on his arrival reported that his son was murdered. The investigating agency, ultimately, collected the material constituting the offence of murder. The plea of bail was rejected by the trial Court. On appeal, the Single Judge of the High Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and rejected the bail application. The prayer for bail was equally refused by the Supreme Court with the direction that in presence of development in the shape of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was free to move the trial Court afresh. The Supreme Court also declined to enter into appreciation of evidence, already recorded by the trial Court. In the present case, the trial is at the stage of evidence of the prosecution. In view of the facts mentioned above, it is deemed expedient that the question of bail may be considered after recording the evidence of at least Nazarat Hussain, P. W. In case of fresh D application for bail before the trial Court, the trial Court shall not be influenced by this order and shall be free in exercising its discretion in a judicial fashion. The petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.