1. The petitioner stand charged for having committed an offence punishable under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Vide: F.I.R. No.191 dated 3-9-1997 registered in Police Station, Alpuri.
2. When arrested the petitioner applied for bail to the Illaqa Qazi, Alpuri who by his order dated 17- 9-1997 extended the concession of bail to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No.2, complainant, filed bail cancellation application before Zila Qazi/Sessions Judge, Shahangia.
2. The said application was accepted by the Zaila Qazi and the bail granted to the petitioner was recalled. Hence this petition.
3. 3.Mr. Sikandar Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Ziaur Rehman Khan, Assistant Advocate- General for the State present and heard.
4. 4.At the very out-set the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Zaila Qazi/Sessions Judge had acted in haste and had recalled the bail granted to the petitioner in spite of the fact that he had not misused the concession of bail extended to him. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Zaila Qazi being without jurisdiction, be therefore, set aside. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was even otherwise entitled to be released on bail inasmuch as reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that he is connected with the commission of the offence with which he has been charged. He drew my attention to the site-plan and stated that the petitioner is alleged to have effectively fired at the complainant from a distance of 70 paces. On the other hand, when the complainant was examined by the Doctor, the Doctor, in his medico-legal report, mentioned that the complainant had charing marks. Beside this my attention was also drawn to the fact that the complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R. that the occurrence had been witnessed by Multan son of Amani Gul and Umar son of Jamroz. However, when both the witnesses were examined under section 161, Cr.P.C., they stated that they had not seen the occurrence and that were informed by the complainant that he was fired upon by the accused.
5. 5.The learned counsel for the State placed reliance on case titled Nasir Ahmad v. The State re4rted in PLD 1997 Supreme Court 347 wherein it was held:-- "S. 497... Bail application ... Court at the time of hearing of bail application is supposed to do tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record..................
6. Trend that eye-witnesses take a somersault and give statements which were different from prosecution case and file affidavits at the stage of hearing of bail application with the intention of creating doubt in the prosecution case to enable accused to get the bail was deprecated by Supreme Court with the observation that Courts have to be very careful in such cases and see that bail applications are disposed of strictly according to law on merits keeping in view the distinction between tentative assessm ent and actual evaluation of evidence by the trial Court..................
7. Mind of the Court has to be satisfied where about-turn of some of the eye-witnesses in such a manner shakes up the whole prosecution case from the point of view of credibility of the remaining material.................
8. Each case, in such a situation has to be decided on its own merits."
6. In the circumstances mentioned above and keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan I do not want to go deep into the merits of the case as the final assessm ent/evaluation of the evidence is to be done by the trial Court which has still to record the evidence of the witnesses. This Court, at the moment, has to see as to whether or not sufficient material is available on the record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence charged with. Resultantly, this Court has only to make a tentative assessment of the evidence against the accused available on the record.
9. 7.In view of the record, available on the file, I am of the opinion that reasonable ground do not exist for believing that the petitioner is connected with the offence charged with and that his case is that of further enquiry.
10. 8.Accordingly, this bail petition is accepted. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, provided he deposits Rs,30,000 (Rs,thirty thousand only) as bail money in this Court.