' The petitioner/complainant had lodged the present case vide F.I.R. No,66 dated 8-7-1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered in Police Station, Nara, wherein he charged respondent No,1 Hasrat Ali alias Bhutto to have killed his (the petitioner's) brother, Haji Muhammad Anwar, deceased, by firing at him with a shot gun. It was also alleged vide the same F.I.R. That respondent No,2.
Muhammad Ilyas, had accompanied Hasrat Ali alias Bhutto (respondent No,1) and was present at the time of the occurrence. No specific role was, however, attributed to respondent No,2. It was alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by P.W. Atta Muhammad and P.W. Muhammad Amjad,
2. It may be stated here that the two F.Ws., who are alleged to have seen the occurrence, are closely related to the petitioner/complainant. However during the course of investigation by the first Investigating Officer, P.W. Atta Muhammad, did not support the version of the petitioner/complainant, instead he gave a different version of the occurrence. The other P.W.
Muhammad Amjad, however, supported the petitioner's version as contained in the F.I.R. Which, according to the counsel for the respondents, was not promptly lodged.
3. It was on 17-7-1994 that the case in hand took a new turn when one Muhammad Akbar confessed his guilt before a Magistrate wherein he stated that it was he who had killed the deceased. Barium, All Mardan, Azizur Rehman, Khan Muhammad and Mst. Makhan Jan, in addition to P.W. Atta Muhammad, charged Muhammad Akbar Natt to have committed the murder of Haji Muhammad Anwar. In other words, according to their statements, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., they alleged that the real culprit in the present case was Muhammad Akbar Natt and not respondent No,1 Hasrat All alias Bhutto.
4. It was under these circumstances that the Magistrate granted bail to respondent No,1. The petitioner, not contented with the said order, challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad. The learned Sessions Judge after going through the record of the case rejected the bail cancellation petition filed by the petitioner and at the same time granted pre- arrest bail to co-accused i,e,, respondent No, 2 Muhammad Ilyas.
5. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the Sessions Judge and has filed the present bail cancellation petition.
6. Mr. Khan Afsar Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati, Advocate learned counsel for the accused-respondents and Mr. Abdullah Khan Tonali, Advocate for the State present. And heard at length for about four hours. I have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.
7. It may be stated at the outset that in the present case the final report has since been prepared and the challan was completed on 13-10-1994. An altogether different version has been given in the same. In point of fact, according to the record of the case, there are three versions of the prosecution story. Each one of them is radically at variance with the other. This circumstance has injected an element of uncertainty and at this stage it is difficult to say which one should be chosen in preference to the other. And these divergent versions emerge from the three different Investigating Agencies to whom further enquiry was entrusted from time to time.
8. Without dilating upon the merits of the case and upon the record, as stated above, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has passed a speaking order which is neither arbitrary nor perverse. There exists no reason and none indeed has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to persuade me to interfere with the said order. In the circumstances this bail cancellation petition does not merit consideration and is accordingly rejected.
9. The office shall send the record of the case to the prosecution agency immediately, who, is directed to submit the challan in the trial Court within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the record under intimation to the Deputy Registrar of this Court.