' By way of this order, I tend to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation No,215 and Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation No,282 of 2003 as they are the outcome of one and the same F.I.R. No,17 dated 8-2-2003 registered at Police Station Dadiwala, for offences under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Noor Suleman, petitioner, through instant applications under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Is seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents Daray Khan, Nadir Khan and Arsala Khan, all residents of Wanda Masti Khan, Tehsil and District Lakki Marwat, by learned Sessions Judge, Lakki, Marwat by means of his orders, dated 26-4-2003 and 7-6-2003.
2. Shortly narrated facts of the case are that on 8-2-2003 at 17-45 hours Noor Suleman complainant brought the dead body of his brother Gul Rehman to Police Station Dadiwala, District Lakki Marwat and made a report to the effect that on the said day at "Peshinvela", complainant alongwith his brother Gul Rehman (deceased) and nephew Muhammad Ghulam, was on the way from their village to "Deh" Masti Khan to purchase cattles. When they reached near the house of Ghazi Marjan at about 4 p.m. In village Masti Khan, they were confronted by Daray Khan, Nadir Khan, armed with rifles of .303 bore, Arsala Khan armed with DB shotgun and Habib Khan armed with kalashnikov. On seeing the complainant, they resorted to firing with their respective weapons.
Gul Rehman was hit and fell on the ground. Complainant and his nephew Muhammad Ghulam escaped unhurt. After accomplishing the mission, the accused made good their escape. Motive leading to the incident was stated to be previous blood feud.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Karim Anjum Qasuria, Advocate contended with force, that respondents are directly charged alongwith their co-accused in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For the commission of offence; that there is overwhelming ocular evidence on record connecting the respondents with the guilt; that there is no palpable contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence; that the respondents remained in hiding for sufficient long time and that the learned Sessions Judge had no powers to discuss merits of the case at bail stage. He placed reliance on 1986 SCM R 1027, 1996 SCM R 555 and 1999 PCr.LJ Peshawar 403.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Advocate for the respondents assisted by Mr. Farooq Akhtar, Advocate for the State while defending the impugned orders maintained that medical evidence was in total negation of the version of F.I.R. And that the findings of learned Sessions Judge that case of the respondents need further inquiry, are quite correct and hardly call for interference of this Court.
5. Be that as it may, without highlighting the merits of the case, I find that the learned Sessions Judge was quite justified to hold that the matter needs a thorough probe and, therefore, concession of bail has rightly been extended in this case by invoking the concept of further A inquiry. In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me that the bail granting order is violative of the legal norms and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. No extraordinary circumstance has been pointed by learned counsel as may constitute an impediment in the way of granting bail to the respondents. As the discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence could be settled at trial, I 'feel that respondents may remain on bail. It is not a fit case wherein interference should be done under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which otherwise is discretionary and not mandatory. Shanaz Bibi v. Gul Khan alias Haji Khan and another 1999 PCr.LJ 868 Peshawar and Bahadur Khan v. Ajmal Khan and another 1998 PCr.LJ 1728 Peshawar.
7. In the wake of above discussion, the applications fail which are hereby dismissed. The impugned orders are maintained.