Muhammad Sher Khan vs The State and another

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.---After having been booked in case FIR No.143 dated 20.02.2021 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Naurang, District Lakki Marwat, the petitioner applied for post arrest bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-HI, Lakki Marwat, which was decline d vide Order dated 04.06.2021.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court through the instant bail petition.

2. Brief facts of the case as per contents of FIR are that on 20.02.2021 at 14.25 hours, the complainant accompanied with dead body of deceased Khalil ur Rehman reported the matter in emergency room Civil Hospital, Naurang, to the effect that on the eventful day Khalil ur Rehman was seated in the courtyard at his own Baitak while he was standing at some distance. Meanwhile, Muhammad Sher and Muhammad Hussain sons of Bahadar Sher duly armed with their Kalashnikovs came there on motorcycle driven by Muhammad Sher, that at about 01:00 hours, both the accused stopped their motorcycle, deboarded there from near, Khalil ur Rehman and started firing with their Kalashnikovs with intention to kill him, resultantly , he got hit and fell down. Accused fled away on motorcycle after commission of offence. Complainant could do nothing being empty handed and when he reached near Khalil ur Rehman, he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Motive for the offence was stated to be previous dispute over landed property between the deceased and the accused, hence, the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the parties along with learned Assistant A.G. representing the State, were heard at length and with their valuable assistance the record was gone through.

4. The events narrated by the complainant depict that the incident occurred in the Baitak of the deceased duly witnessed by the complainant. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and recovered 07 empties of 7.62 bore from the place of incident along with the blood stained earth. The matter was promptly reported with no chance of consultation and deliberation that too when the parties are known to each other . The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution and that the empties collected from the spot when examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory explains that the same were fired from one weapon. The learned counsel went to build up his case that when inter-se distance between the assailants and the deceased was 43 feet, then, in that eventuality the presence of charring marks on person of the deceased belies the prosecution story . He went further and submitted that the deceased was examined by the doctor and laceration and bruises were found on his body and that laceration and bruises can only and only be caused from the close distance which is not the case of the prosecution. True that some of the injuries were bearing charring marks and some B were lacerated in nature, but this aspect of the case cannot be dealt with as it will amount to deeper appreciation of evidence. At present, after evaluating the available evidence on file, this court reaches nowhere, but to hold the petitioner seems prima facie connected with the commission C of the offence and does not deserve the concession of bail. The instant petition is bereft of merit stands dismissed.