' The petitioner alongwith another was proceeded against vide F.I.R. No,61/94, dated 6-3-1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Rukan Pur.
2. Prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Lodged by Bashir Ahmad father of the deceased Saleem Akhtar is that on 6-3-1994 he closed his shop and went to his house for "Aftar". At about 7-45 p.m.
One Khalil Ahmad who had a shop adjacent to the shop of his son Saleem Akhtar deceased came to his house and informed that two persons armed with pistol and revolver entered the shop of Saleem Akhtar and one of them fired a shot which hit him on his chest and that his son was lying in unconscious condition. The complainant rushed to the spot but after a while he died due to the injuries. The occurrence was also witnessed by Ghulam Akbar, Riaz and Khalil Ahmad. He further stated that Maulvi Abdul. Ghafoor, Imam Masjid of the mosque informed him that he had seen two persons running away on a motor-cycle. During investigation, the accused were arrested on 16-3- 1994. The set of evidence collected against them is as follows:--
(i) the evidence of accused having' been last seen by Masood and Sadiq. These witnesses also mentioned about the registration number of the motor-cycle as RNC-1069. Statements of these witnesses were recorded on 6-3-1994.
(ii) evidence of extra-judicial confession before Noor Muhammad and Manzoor Ahmad.
Statements of these witnesses were recorded on 16-3-1994.
(iii) recovery of pistol from Jaleel petitioner recovery of motor-cycle on 16-3-1994 and revolver from Bashir co-accused.
(iv) motive.
' Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded the same day. According to which, his son owned a truck and Bashir co-accused was driver of the said truck. About 4/5 days prior to the occurrence, Bashir accused demanded Rs,20,000 from his son as advance. On refusal by Saleem Akhtar he threatened him with dire consequences. Jalil petitioner who was an apprentice of Bashir co-accused abused Saleem Akhtar and also threatened him with dire consequences. This incident forming motive part of the prosecution story was witnessed by Abdul Karim and father of the complainant Bashir. Their statements were of course, recorded the same day when the F.I.R.
Was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for bail on the following grounds:--
(i) that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R.
(ii) that no identification parade was, held.
(iii) that no motive is alleged in the F.I.R.
(iv) that the case basically hinges on extra-judicial confession which is a weakest type of evidence and the petitioners merit to be released on bail.
' Reliance is placed on 1977 PCr.LJ 455, 1983 PCr.LJ 1836, 1985 PCr.LJ 1976 and 1990 PCr.LJ 1632.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned counsel for the State while opposing the prayer for bail made following submissions:--
(i) that it is a case where F.I.R. Was lodged promptly.
(ii) that if the complainant had any personal grouse to settle against the accused, he could have named them in the F.I.R.
(iii) that the motive was furnished the same date to police by the complainant through supplementary statements.
(iv) that the prosecution evidence consists of independent witnesses who have no enmity with the petitioners to falsely implicate them.
(v) that the petitioner No I has a previous criminal record of having been involved in two murder cases, two cases under the Armed Ordinance and one case under section 17 of Haraba Ordinance, 1979. A list of these cases duly signed by Moharrir, Police Station Rukanpur alongwith F.I.R. Nos. Has been placed on record. It is stated that in case F.I.R. No,206 of 1991 under section 302 Police Station Rukan Pur petitioner had killed his father and step-mother. However, it ended in compromise and acquittal.
' In support of aforementioned submissions, the reliance is placed on 1992 PCr.LJ 1993, 1991 M LD 2001 and 1990 M LD 1067.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The evidence collected against the petitioner and his co-accused during investigation consists of following:--
(i) Statements of Muhammad Sadiq and Masoo P.Ws. To the effect that they saw petitioners and his co-accused driving motor-cycle bearing No,RNC 1069 recorded the same day when the occurrence took place and conversation of the petitioner and his co-accused when they fell down from the motor-cycle as they were in great hurry.
(ii) Evidence of extra-judicial confession made before Manzoor Ahmad and Noor Ahmed P.Ws.
(iii) Recovery of pistol from the petitioner.
(iv) Recovery of empty from the spot and the report of the Forensic Science Expert to the effect that the empty was fired from the pistol which was recovered from the petitioner.
(v) Recovery of motor-cycle from the petitioner.
7. In a petition for bail, the Court is not obliged to go into deeper analysis of the evidence collected by the prosecution as it may effect the merits of the case. It is only a tentative assessment of the material on record that the Court weighs while deciding the question of bail. Keeping this principle in mind, the evidence collected by the prosecution so far prima facie incriminates the petitioner in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, is not entitled to bail at this stage.
8. For aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on hail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.