1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner alongwith Iqbal Jan and Sultan Mahmood, was charged under section 302/34, P.P.C. In the F.I.R. Dated 27-2-1994 lodged at Police Station Kabal. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Ali Jan who was injured and who subsequently died as a result of the injury received by him. Co-accused Iqbal Jan and Sultan Mahmood were allowed bail by the Magistrate but bail was refused to the petitioner. The bail granting order in favour of the co- accused Iqbal Jan and Sultan Mahmood was challenged by the complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, where the petitioner also applied for grant of bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, rejected the bail application of petitioner Mian Gul Jan and also recalled the bail granting order of the Magistrate passed in favour of co-accused Iqbal Jan and Sultan Mahmood.
2. All the three accused persons filed Criminal Miscellaneous No, 579 of 1994 before the Peshawar High Court which was heard and decided by the learned Acting Chief Justice by order dated 30-8- 1994. The learned Acting Chief Justice admitted the co-accused Iqbal Jan and Sultan Mahmood to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate relying on the case reported in 1994 SCM R 1680. However, the learned Acting Chief Justice dismissed the bail plea of the petitioner by the same order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation of firing against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Cannot be believed as the manner in which the incident is stated to have taken place was not possible. It is also contended by the learned counsel that on examination of the site plan in the case, it appears that the deceased could not suffer the injury in the manner described by him from the place where the accused persons were shown to be present. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one of the appreciations of evidence in the case which is not possible at this stage. Suffice it to say that in the lodged by the deceased himself before his death, the petitioner was specifically charged with the firing. The Courts below, therefore, rightly exercised discretion in refusing the grant of bail to the petitioner. No ground for leave to appeal has been made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.