' Respondent No,1 Atlas Khan stands charged, Vide F.I.R. No,521 dated 2-9-1997 registered under section 302, P.P.C. In Police Station Nowshera Kalan, for having effectively fired at Sajid Mehmood, deceased, when the said deceased went to the house of respondent No,1 on 1-9-1997 at about 9- 30 p.m. Alongwith the complainant namely, Sultan Sher and his brother namely, Arshad Mehmood.
Sajid Mehmood deceased was injured on his right knee, removed to the Civil Hospital, Nowshera for first aid and then shifted to the Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, where he expired.
2. When arrested, the respondent-accused approached the Court of Illaqa Magistrate Nowshera (Alhajj Mazhar Sajjad) for bail. He was refused bail by the Illaqa Magistrate Vide: his order dated 10- 9-1997.
3. The respondent-accused then approached the Sessions Judge Nowshera (Mr. Ghulam Muhyuddin Malik) who Vide: his order recorded on 6-10-1997 enlarged him on bail.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant has challenged its legality before this Court by filing this bail cancellation application.
5. Mr. Muzammil Khattak Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, Mr. Tasleem Hussain, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No, 1/accused and Khawaja Azhar Rashid, learned Asstt: Advocate General for respondent No,2/the State, present and heard. Record of the case perused.
6. Without dilating upon the merits of the case at this stage, I am of the view that the respondent- accused appears to have fired at the deceased under some misconception. The mere fact that he had fired at the right knee of the deceased would show that he had no intention to kill him because if he had such an intention then in that case he should/could have fired at his head/chest.
7. Secondly, a perusal of the site-plan would show that both the eyewitnesses allegedly present at the time of occurrence were present at the place from where they could not see respondent No,1 firing at the deceased. Thirdly, E the confession of respondent No,1, to which a reference has been made again and again by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would reveal that respondent No,1 had no intention to kill the deceased or any body else. It appears from the record that he had fired at the odd hours of the night, only to scare the persons who had gone to his house.
8. In the circumstances, I am of the view that reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence charged with and therefore, his case is that of further inquiry.
To the same effect are the findings of the lower appellate Court. The said Court has given valid reasons for its conclusion and I see no justification to interfere with the same.
9. Besides, the Sessions Judge has recorded a speaking order and the conditions laid down in section 497 Cr.P.C. For granting/refusing bail to respondent No,1 have been amply fulfilled.
Therefore, on this score too there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. If an authority is needed I am fully supported by a case titled Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported as 1968 Supreme Court (M.R.) 1168 in this respect wherein it was held:- ' "Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J. The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal.
' On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497 Cr.P.C. For refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed."
10. This bail cancellation application has no substance and is accordingly I rejected.