' A case under section 302/34, P.P.0 is registered against the petitioner and three others vide F.I.R.
No,86, dated 5-7-1996, lodged at Police Station Jatli District Rawalpindi for an occurrence, which took place on the same day at 6.00 p.m. In which Iftikhar Ahmad was murdered. The report was filed by Imdad Hussain complainant at 10-05 p.m. The same day, in which it was contended that the petitioner while armed with. 12 bore gun came to the spot along with Qamar Zaman, Zahid both armed with. 12 bore guns and Fakhar Zaman armed with pistol. 30 bore. They raised Lalkara that Muhammad Fazal who was injured by them earlier on the same day at 3.30 p.m. Had survived but the deceased Iftikhar Ahmad should not be allowed to escape. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner opened fire from his gun hitting the deceased on his neck; the second fire was made by Qamar Zaman which injured left chest of the deceased while the 3rd fire was made by Zahid hitting the left shoulder of the deceased. The fire made by Fakhar Zaman missed the target. Thereafter, all the 4 accused made their escape good. The occurrence was seen by Muhammad Fayyaz, and Abdul Khaliq P.Ws. Besides the complainant Imdad Hussain.
2. The petitioner applied for bail in the Court of Session, which was dismissed. Hence this bail petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the acclaimed eye-witnesses were not present at the spot, hence it was an unseen occurrence; that there was delay in making the F.I.R.
Which was ultimately registered at the spot after due deliberation and inquiry; that locale of injuries will show that these were caused by one shot whereas according to the eye-witnesses all three of the assailants had fired with .12 bore guns; that there was a blackening around the injuries, which showed that fire was made from the very close range whereas according to the investigation so far conducted and the site plan prepared at the pointation of the P.Ws. Showed that the distance between the assailants and the victim at the time of fire was 41 to 42 feet, hence there could be no blackening in view of that distance; that no weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner, who had taken up the plea before the police that though he had reached the spot, but he was not armed and have been implicated in the case falsely on account of his close relationship with the assailants being their maternal uncle. As such it was contended that it was a case of further inquiry and the petitioner was entitled to bail.
4. The learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the investigation in this case is complete and the challan has already been submitted to the Court for trial which is likely to commence very soon; that deeper appreciation of the evidence cannot be made at this stage to show whether there was any contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account of occurrence; that there was no previous enmity between the parties so as to implicate the petitioner falsely in this case; that the antecedents of the petitioner were not clean in the past as he was involved in 7 similar type of cases; that he remained underground for about 24 days after the occurrence and was ultimately arrested on 27-7-1996 and finally that there is nothing to suggest that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He was armed with .12 bore gun and had initiated attacked at the deceased followed by his co- accused. There is nothing to suggest that the occurrence was unseen. On the contrary, all the three eye-witnesses aforenamed had implicated the petitioner for committing the murder of the deceased alongwith his co-accused in their statements made before the police. Even otherwise, the Medico-Legal Report shows that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by fire-arm. The location of the injuries, prima facie, corresponds to the location given by the eye- witnesses in their statements. The presence of blackening over the injuries and the distance between the assailants and the victim cannot be appreciated without examining the evidence at the trial. Any attempt at deeper appreciation of such type of evidence may prejudice the trial itself.
The offence for which the petitioner is arraigned is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The petitioner has, therefore, no case for bail at this stage. The bail petition is dismissed.
Bail .