1. 1 This is an application for cancellation of bail of the two respondents which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Gilgit, vide his order, dated 4-10-1995.
2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Sifat Shah was missing and initial report was lodged at Police Station Gilgit, on. 1-5-1995. The police initially recorded a report under section 156(3), Cr.P.C.
2. And started investigation. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found near Jugulate on 3-5-1995. The dead body was sent for inedico-legal report and the investigation was started.
3. ' I have heard the learned Advocate-General at length. He mainly agitated three points; first, that the deceased was last seen with the accused and subsequently he was found dead. No doubt there is a statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., where the witness states that the deceased had gone to the shop of the accused and had asked the witness to stay in Gari Bazar, Gilgit. After some time when the witness went to the shop of the accused the shop was closed. Admittedly it was the narration of the broad daylight. It is also admitted that the shop of the accused is situated on the main Bazar of Airport Road and it is surrounded by other shops and the shopkeepers were doing their business there. None of them came forward to make a statement nor police have recorded their statements. Thus, this will be a very sketchy circumstantial piece of evidence to rely, at this stage. Secondly, the learned Advocate-General said that certain recoveries are made such as blood-stained clothes which also absolutely do not connect. The accused with the crime and a watch which is allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused and identified by the relatives of the deceased. This is also not a solid prima facie piece of evidence to connect the accused with the crime because the watch had no special mark of the deceased. No doubt, the deceased party have charged the accused after dead body of the deceased was found at Juglote.
4. Lastly, motive alleged by the prosecution is also not substantiated from any other piece of evidence except a statement of the widow of the deceased, that also after the recovery of the dead body. The trial Judge has rightly appreciated that if it was in the knowledge of the wife of the deceased she should have stated first before the police when they were making inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C., and the police should have gone to the accused instead of searching the deceased here and there. The trial Judge has already granted concession of bail exercising his judicial discretion as such, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Judge. Application for cancellation of the bail is dismissed.