ORDER CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J. - This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the District Criminal Court, Pallandari, on January 23, 1996, whereby the accused-respondents were allowed bail in the offences under Sections 5,15, Islamic Penal Laws Act read with Sections 307,149,147,148, APC and Sections 13/20/65, Arms Act.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a case under Sections 307/34, APC and Sections 5/15, Islamic Penal Laws Act, was registered at Police Station Pallandri on the report of complainant Shahpal Akhtar, on July 10, 1995 at 5.30 P.M. Against the respondents and other accused. It was stated in the F.I.R, that the complainant was employed in Peshawar C.M.H. And had come on two months' leave. It was also disclosed that there was some family dispute between his cousin Mst. I Shesham Jan and her husband, Muhammad Hayat Khan, accused. To solve Sh e said dispute, Hayat Khan summoned Muhammad Hussan, Gul Hussan, Purvaiz, Ashfaq, Ishaque Tariq Khan, Haji Lai and complainant, on July 10, 1995 at his residence who reached there. During the conversation at about 3 P.M., said Hayat Khan accused passed remarks against his wife, Mst.
Shesham Jan, on which hot words were exchanged between Gul Hussan and Hayat Khan. After the altercation, Hayat Khan went towards the house of Muhammad Akram where Muhammad Akram son of Jewan Khan, Mazhar son of Munir Ahmed Khan, Arshad son of Chiragh Ahmed Khan had already assembled in his house and after a while, he and Hayat Khan armed with 12-bore guns, Mazhar-with a 'Pail' and Arshad with a 'Sota', attacked, Muhammad Akram, with the intention to kill, fired at Gul Hussan and Ashfaq Khan which hit the left shoulder and chest of Gul Hussan, while Ashfaq Khan received injuries at his nose, neck, jaw and chest. On the alarm raised by the complainant and others, the ladies of the locality gathered there. The complainant with the help of Muhammad Hussan brought out the injured Gul Hussan when accused Hayat Khan, with the intention to kill, fired at Muhammad Hussan from a close range which hit him at his right leg.
Meanwhile, Mazhar, Arshad and Mst. Kalo Bi, accused started beating the complainant and Muhammad Hussan with 'Pail' and 'Sotas'. The complainant helped Muhammad Hussan to take him out when Muhammad Akram accused, with his 12-bore gun, fired at him from a close range which hit his hack and right hand of the complainant. Meanwhile, Hayat Khan fired his third shot which hit Muhammad Hussan's right leg who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused with a common object, after having armed with guns, 'Pail' and 'Sotas', killed Muhammad Hussan and injured Gul Hussan, Ashfaq Khan and complainant. The occurrence was witnessed by the said persons and the ladies present there.
3. After investigation, the challan was forwarded to the District Criminal Court, Pallandri, in the offences under Sections 307,147,148,149, APC, read with Sections 5/15, Islamic Penal Laws Act and Sections 13/20/65, Arms Act. The trial Court took the cognizance of the offences where the trial of the case is in progress. The accused-respondents applied for their bail which, after hearing the parties, was allowed vide the impugned order.
4. Kh. Atta Ullah, the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, the learned Counsel representing the complainant, maintained that a strong prima facie case exists against the accused- respondents who with common object and intention, while armed with 'Pail' and 'Sota', inflicted injuries on Muhammad Hussan deceased and prosecution witnesses. The accused-respondents committed a heinous offence for which they are liable to punishment of 'Qisas' or death sentence. The prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, is attracted in the matter, as such the discretion exercised by the trial Court in favour of accused-respondents, is against the basic principles governing the bail matters. The learned Counsel for the complainant referred to 1979 S.C.M.R. 92 and 1981 S.C.M.R., 849. On the other hand, Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents, defending the order of the trial Court, raised the following points:-
(i) That there is no prima facie case established against the accused- respondents by the prosecution;
(ii) that the allegations levelled against the accused-respondents require further probe and inquiry, as such the case is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It was explained that the medical evidence contradicts the version put forth by the complainant and prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise, the attribution of injuries on the person of the deceased and prosecution witnesses, to the accused-respondents, requires further inquiry in view of the nature of the injuries;
(iii) that the trial Court, after due consideration of the facts involved in the case, preceded to exercise its discretion vested in it by law which does not require interference by this Court as nothing has been pointed out,, violating any law or principle established by the superior Courts in the bail matters.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. According to the prosecution version, respondent No.1, Mazhar Hussan is attributed to have caused injuries 0n the person of Muhammad Hussan deceased and Shahpal Akhtar, complainant (injured prosecution witness) with a 'Pail', while the other accused-respondent, Muhammad Arshad, is alleged to have caused injuries with a^Sota', to the deceased and other prosecution witnesses. A perusal of the medico-legal report shows that Muhammad Hussan deceased received 5 injuries on his person. Out of those, the first for are of fire-arm while the fifth one is multiple bruises marks of different sizes present on the face. The postmortem report, though does not disclose any injury caused by blunt weapon, yet the above referred injury can be stated to be" caused as such.
Shahpal Akhtar, complainant, the prosecution witness received 4 injuries which, according to the medico-legal report, are stated to be the fire-arms injuries. Gul Hussan, the other prosecution witness also received 5 injuries which are shown to have been caused with fire-arms. According to the complainant's version, the accused-respondents are attributed to have caused the injuries with 'Pail5 and 'Sota' to the deceased and prosecution witnesses but the medico-legal' report contradicts the version put forth by the complainant and --'the other; witnesses. The multiple bruises shown on the person of Muhammad Hussan deceased also do not appear to have been caused with the weapons attributed to the accused-respondents.
6. The Court, while considering a bail application, should take into consideration the allegations made in the F.I.R., statements of the eyewitnesses and other incriminating material placed by the prosecution, including any plea raised by the accused. To form an opinion, if reasonable grounds appear for believing that the accused was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the accused shall not be released on bail subject to provisos of Section 497, Cr.P.C. But if it appears to the Court, at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds of further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail.
7. While deciding a bail matter, ordinarily, the detailed merits the case are not gone into' as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1966 S.C. 340. It may be added that the rule laid down seems to be quite sound. However, a cursory view of the merits cannot be avoided in disposing a bail matter, to reach the conclusion justified in law. It may be observed that the mere allegation that a person his committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, is not sufficient to refuse bail unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity as it has also to be kept in mind that if an accused, in view of the facts given in a case, is finally acquitted, he cannot be compensated for his period of detention in the Judicial Lock-up during the trial, apart from the fact that the law also allows concession of bail to a person pending further inquiry into his guilt. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on PLD 1983 S.C. (AJ&K) 8, wherein the following observation was made:- "It is the basic principle of lav/ that the bail is not to be refused as a punishment merely on the allegations that a person has committed an offence punishable with death or transportation of life unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclosgtheir complicity. The wisdom behind it is that if an accused in view of the circumstances of a given case is finally acquitted, how can he be compensated for his detention, in the judicial lock-up during the trial. Therefore, the law allows concession of bail to such person, of course, pending further enquiry into his guilt". revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.