' Petitioner Aurangzeb Khan is one of the accused persons involved in case F.I.R. No.31 dated 22-2- 2004 registered at Police Station, Kakki under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He has moved instant application seeking his release on bail after refusal of the same from two forums below vide orders dated 20-3-2004 and 7-4-2004 respectively.
2. The petitioner is accused of having on 22-2-2004 at 'Shan Qazavela' in Barid Vial near company mosque, Kakki sharing his common intention with eh-accused Muhammad Ali, committed Qatl- iAmd of Iksar Ali Khan deceased and attempted murder of Asghar Ali complainant and his companion Qismat Ali.
3. Mr. Muhammad Shalinawaz Sikandari, Advocate forich petitioner contended that there is delay in loding of the F.I.Raence speaks volume about consultations and deliberations; that the becomes having taken place at night time, the identity of the cults regarding doubtful; that elders of the locality are ready to file goes not support innocence of the petitioner and that medical evidet to further inquiry the story of prosecution and as such the case vision 497, Cr.P.C.And the same is covered under subsection (21
4. Learned Deputy Advocate Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chudhry Muhammad Shahab Khan, General for the State assisted his the bail application, contended Advocate for the complainant o-supported by ocular, medical and that the prosecution case with recovery of empties from the spot, circumstantial evidence case the concession of bail for cogent reasons not open to exception. The petitioner has beer. And the impugne of grant/refusal of bail is to be determined aside. They are acquitted of the charge. They would be released from I Jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.
5. The regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Judiciously secution satisfies the Court that there are reasonable While ' oelieve that the accused has committed the offence falling in category, the Court must refuse bail. On the other hand, where g.,:cused satisfied the Court that there are no reasonable grounds tobelieve that he is guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of offence, the Court will not conduct a preliminary inquiry/trial but will only make tentative assessment i.e. Will take all the material collected by the police for and against the accused and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt. Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case is neither desirable nor permissible at hail stage. So, the Court will not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at that stage.
6. In view of the express allegations in the F.I.R., nomination of the petitioner as an accused and the specific role attributed to him coupled with motive, recovery of empties from the spot, I am of the view that apparently no case for grant of bail has been made out and the Courts below have rightly declined bail to the petitioner. Omer Khan and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2003 PCr.LJ 1110 Peshawar). The application fails which is hereby dismissed.