' SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, J.--- This order shall commonly dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,177 of 1998, Criminal Miscellaneous No,79 of 1999 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,148 of 1999, as all the three petitions have arisen out of a single F.I.R. No,258, dated 26-8-1999 under section 324/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Saddar at the behest of the complainant Waheed Murad, wherein the accused/respondents herein have been admitted to bail by the learned Special Judge, Bannu on 8-9-1998, 6-5-1999 and 11-10-1999 respectively. The complainant Waheed Murad is aggrieved of the said orders and sought the cancellation of bail, thus, allowed to the accused/respondents through the aforesaid three orders.
2. According to the story narrated by the complainant in his initial report made in the emergency room of Civil Hospital, Bannu where he has brought his injured father Bakhtabaz on 24-6-1998 at 8- 40 hours in a Datsun Pick-up, the complainant alongwith his father were proceeding towards Shakarbaz (his uncle) who was sloughing tractor in his field situated near the graveyard of village Mardi Khel and on reaching him, he noticed Asghar Ali, Khushdil, armed with Kalashnikovs and Ajmal armed with a D.B. Shotgun already present in the jungle of dates. On seeing the complainant and his father, under the command of Asghar Ali, all the three fired at them with their respective weapons with which Bakhtabaz, father of the complainant, was hit and fell to the ground, while the complainant luckily escaped unhurt.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the bail cancellation vehemently argued that the impugned orders of the learned Special Judge releasing the accused/respondents on bail are patently illegal and he has proceeded on the premises which are alien to the principles governing the grant of bail. The points which prevailed upon the lower Court are not sufficient in any manner to grant the concession of bail to the accused who are directly charged in the F.I.R. Lodged with the reasonable promptitude and the occurrence took place in the broad daylight. The ocular evidence of a high standard and quality is forthcoming against the respondents. The learned lower Court, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has fallen into a grave error that the empties were not found on the spot and that the accused were stated to be present in dates jungle, while in the site plan they were shown in the under- construction house. The learned counsel argued that it is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. That the accused were present in the jungle of dates trees but when they saw the complainant party, all of them came near to them and accused Asghar Ali commanded the co-accused to kill and on such command all fired at them and their firing produced the effect of hitting the father of the complainant who fell on the spot. The exact words used by the complainant are as under:--{{URDU TEXT}} ' This means that the firing was not made from the jungle of dates but when they reached near the victim, they opened fire at him. He further argued that the motive for the occurrence is also mentioned in the F.I.R. Besides the complainant and his injured father Bakhtabaz, the occurrence was also witnessed by Shakarbaz whose statement was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And has fully corroborated the version of the' complainant. He argued that the injured was hospitalized for more than a month and the injuries caused to him were declared serious in nature by the doctor.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents has defended the bail granting order and has stated that the case of the respondents conveniently falls within the scope of further inquiry and the learned lower Court has rightly exercised his discretion.
5. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and gone through the record. The accused/respondents are directly charged in the F.I.R. For an offence which carries punishment falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The evidence of the complainant, the version of the injured and that of P.W. Shakarbaz is available on the record against the accused/respondents. All these circumstances are sufficient to provide grounds for believing that the respondents are, prima facie, connected with the offence charged with. The simple non- recovery of the empties from the spot and presence of the accused on another point than the jungle of dates (which has also been explained by the complainant, but escaped the attention of the learned lower Court) are not of that efficacy which could give the effect of outweighing the evidence of the prosecution and, as such, it was incorrectly concluded by the learned lower Court that the case of the respondents fell within the scope of further inquiry. We may observe that every hypothetical question which may creep into the mind and which could be resolved only after recording the evidence during the trial would not make the case that of further inquiry. The case of further inquiry would only be made out when the data collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to provide reasonable grounds for believing that a prima facie case existed against the accused. In such circumstances, we hold that the discretion exercised by the learned lower Court in releasing the accused/respondents on bail is not correct. Resultantly, we accept all the three petitions, set aside the impugned orders of the Court below and recall the bail granted to the accused/respondents herein. They are present in Court, be taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody. Since the challan is complete from 31-7-1998 for the purpose of proceeding under section 512, Cr.P.C., therefore, the prosecution is directed to put the same in Court within a week from receipt of record, whereafter the trial Court shall conclude the trial within a period of three months. The office is directed to transmit record of the case forthwith to the concerned quarter.