' This is an application for bail by Muhammad Saleem who is accused of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Mst. Khadija Bibi. His bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his order dated 16-7-1977).
2. According to the F. I. R. Lodged at the instance of Syed Mahram Shah father of the deceased with Police Station 'B' Division, Rawalpindi on 28-7-1977 at 4-30 p.m. It is alleged that the complainant was tenant of the petitioner Muhammad Saleem, a goldsmith of Sarafa Bazar, Rawalpindi. He became a regular visitor to his house and asked for the hand of Mst. Khadija Bibi his daughter but he declined to marry her with him. Whenever he tried to marry her elsewhere the petitioner would create hindrance. On the previous evening the complainant settled her marriage with someone else and when the petitioner came to know about it he became furious and left the house. The petitioner met Mst. Khadija Bibi on the day of occurrence and asked her to come to Sarafa Bazar.
She left her house at 12-00 noon on the pretext to meet her girl friends. At about 3-30 p.m. The petitioner alongwith another person again came to the house of the complainant and asked for the return of his sewing machine. At that time he had injury on his hand and his clothes were blood-stained. On inquiry he told him that his daughter had been murdered and that he would come to know about it after a short while. He collected the sewing machine and left in a taxi. The complainants alongwith his son went to Sarafa Bazar. The shop of the petitioner was closed. He found the dead body of Mst. Khadija Bibi smeared in blood= in a room of the chobara of the petitioner above the Saleem Market. He expressed strong suspicion that Muhammad Saleem goldsmith had done to death his daughter.
3. The police arrested the petitioner on 29-5-1976 and recovered the blood-stained clothes and the blood-stained churri the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. He was medically examined and the doctor found incised wound on his left index finger. The petitioner was also seen coming out from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. The post-mortem examination of Mst. Khadija Bibi shows that there were 47 injuries on her person caused by sharp- edged weapon.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case tests on circumstantial evidence alone. It is further contended that the story with regard to the visit of the petitioner to the house of the complainant after the murder is improbable. The petitioner would not be wearing the blood-stained clothes nor he would ask for the return of the sewing machine. Lastly, bail is sought on the ground of delay.
Reliance is placed on an unreported case of Waqar Ahmad v. The State Cr1. (Misc. No, 1732-B/I977, decided on 10-6-1977).
5. Kb. Muhammad Afzal, learned Additional Advocate-General, opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner had a strong motive to commit the crime and there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence against him. Blood-stained clothes of the petitioner and the weapon of offence have been recovered at his instance. He has a tell-tale injury on his person. The dead body smeared in blood with 47 injuries was found in his room. It is submitted that delay per se is no ground for grant of bail.
6. Mr. Fazal-e-Elahi Siddiqui, learned counsel for the complainant, adopts the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and further submits that the petitioner is likely to abscond and/or would influence the prosecution witnesses if released on bail.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail at this stage. The injury found on the person of the accused, the recovery of his blood- stained clothes and weapon of offence at his instance, the presence of the dead body with 47 knife injuries in the room over the shop of the petitioner and the evidence of his coming out of the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence is such circumstantial evidence from which there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. As regards delay their Lordships of Supreme Court have consistently laid down that delay by itself is not a sufficient ground for the granting of bail. The latest pronouncement on the subject is made in the case of Barkhurdar v. Davit Ali (1). Two to three years delay in the commencement of the trial as a matter of course has been held to be quite inevitable. The
(1) PLD 1977 SC 434 petitioner was arrested on 29-5-1976 and a period of one year and 6 months would not constitute delay. Prospective delay cannot be taken note of at this stage.
9. For the foregoing reasons I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in granting bail to the petitioner at this stage. The application is accordingly dismissed.
' Any observation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this Court is restricted to the determination of the matter of bail and shall not affect the trial.