' By this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Khalid Usman, petitioner, seeks bail in case F.I.R.
No.235 dated 27-9-2003 registered in Civil Hospital, Serai Naurang, where he has been shown to be one of the accused for commission of offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. As per prosecution story, on the day of occurrence i.e. 27-9-2003 at about 1630 hours complainant Saadat Ali Shah alongwith his sons Sajjad Ali Shah (deceased) and Haider Ali Shah were on the way to Bazar Naurang to make purchases. When they reached Bannu Dera Road near 'Murghi Mandi', they were confronted by Khalid Usman, petitioner, armed with rifle of 303 bore and his brother Muhammad Abid, armed with .30 bore pistol. The petitioner fired at Sajjad Ali Shah, with which, he was hit and fell on the ground. On chase by the complainant and lnayatullah, A.S.-I. Both the accused were apprehended. Complainant and his son Haider Ali Shah were shown to have witnessed the occurrence. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be dispute over womenfolk.
3. Immediately after the occurrence, the victim was removed to Civil Hospital, Naurang. In view of his precarious condition, injured was referred to Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. He succumbed to the injuries and expired on 27-9-2003. Sections of law were altered from 324/34, P.P.C. To 302/34, P.P.C.
4. The petitioner submitted applications for grant of bail before the forums below which were rejected vide orders dated 28-10-2003 and 8-11-2003. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer.
5. It has been contended by Haji Mirza Ali Khan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been charged in the case: that there are sufficient grounds to believe that petitioner is innocent and that all these facts essentially render his case as to one of further inquiry and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by Mr. Sultan ShPhryar Khan Marwat, Advocate for the complainant defended the impugned order and bitterly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. Despite my repeated queries from the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has not been able to point out any special circumstance in this case so as to convince me that the case in hand is fit for grant of bail. In the absence of any special circumstance in this case having been pointed out before me, I have little doubt that prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the offence alleged against him and the case-in-hand is not fit for admission of the petitioner to bail at such a stage.
8. While dealing with the bail application all that is to be seen is whether there are sufficient reasons to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, Court has not to go into details of evidence nor could the evidence be sifted at bail stage.
8. 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, his apprehension at the spot, positive report of the Fire-Arms Expert and motive leading to the unfortunate incident, I have not been persuaded to accept the application and admit the petitioner to bail. The bail application fails which is hereby dismissed.