' The petitioner namely Iltaf is one of the accused persons involved in case F.I.R. No,424, dated 29-9- 2003 registered under sections 324/452/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Umarzai District Charsadda. The petitioner has moved instant application under section 497, Cr.P.C. For his release on bail on refusal of the same by the Courts below vide orders, dated 24-4-2004 and 6-5-2004 respectively.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the day of occurrence i,e, 29-9-2003 at 6-30 hours complainant Asif was making preparation for Fajjar prayer in his house situated in Sarwar Abad Umarzai District Charsadda. Door of the house was open. In the meanwhile Tehsinullah and his sons Iltaf (petitioner) and Bays duly armed entered into the house and started firing at the complainant. With the firing of Iltaf petitioner the complainant was hit and sustained injuries.
Previous blood feud enmity was stated to be motive for the occurrence. Manzoor (brother) and Kashmir Gul (father) of the complainant were stated to have witnessed the incident.
3. Mr. Saadullah Khan Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the bail application mainly contended; that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; that there is contradictions in the ocular account and the medical evidence; that the petitioner was found innocent in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer; and that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail.
4. Mr. Zia Jehangir, Advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by Mr. Saeedullah Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand, opposed the bail and contended that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R.; that the prosecution is in possession of adequate evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and that material on record clearly tends to suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence charged with which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. To substantiate the pleas, he placed reliance on Nauroz Khan v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 698 (Peshawar); Mehtar v. The State and another 2000 PCr.LJ 60 (Peshawar) and Sher Ahmad and 5 others v. Jan Faqir and others 2003 PCr.LJ 528 (Peshawar).
5. To consider the bail matter of an accused person involved in a non-bailable offence, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall not be released on bail unless case is covered by any of the provisions in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. If it appears to the Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. It would be seen that in matters concerning bail, the exercise carried out by the Court is a preliminary one and is restricted to a tentative sifting of the evidence on record opposed to an elaborate sifting of the case. The Court has only to see whether the accused was connected with the commission of crime or not. For that purpose, only tentative assessment of evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation is not called for. It is the mind of the Court which is to be satisfied that the case under its consideration is fit case or not for grant of bail.
7. Applying the above principle to the case in hand, it would be seen that the alleged incident is one of broad-daylight. The crime in question having taken place on 29-9-2003 at 6-30 hours, the matter was reported to the police with promptitude at 6-45 hours in the hospital. The petitioner is directly nominated in the report and a specific role of firing has been attributed to him. Medical evidence, witnesses of the spot, motive, recovery of one empty of .32 bore from the spot and abscondence of the petitioner fully connect with the guilt. No case for grant of bail is made out.
9. The application fails and bail is refused. The observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand only.