Said Alam vs The State and another

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.--- Petitioner Syed Alam, after refusal of bail by the learned court below, in case FIR No.584 under dated sections 08-12-2020, 302/324/34, registered P.P.C., at Police Station Haved, District Bannu moved the instant bail petition to this Court on different ground, mentioned therein.

2. Concisely the facts of the prosecution case as is evident from the First Information Report are, that on 08.12.2020 at about 16.35 hours, complainant Ajab Noor Khan in injured condition lodged a report in the Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital, Bannu to the effect that on the eventful day, he along with his father Wali Shah was present at metalled road leading to Gul Badin Landidak, near grocery shop situated in village Haved Khass, when at about 15.50 hours, accused Said Rauf duly armed with 12 bore shot gun, Tawab Raheem, armed with pistol, accused petitioner Syed Alam, armed with kalashnikov attracted to the spot and immediately they started firing at them with the intention to commit their qatl-i-amd, resultantly he was hit and injured, while his father Khan Wall Shah luckily escaped unhurt. Accused decamped from the spot after the occurrence. Being empty handed, they could do nothing. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant lateron succumbed to the injuries, hence; the FIR (ibid).

3. I have heard, arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Asstt. A.G. for the State and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.

4. The record tells that the petitioner along with two others ate directly charged for the murder of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that initially after receiving fire arm injuries; the complainant was rushed to the hospital in injured condition, who later on expired. It is evident from the record that it was non-else but the deceased then injured, who reported the matter to the local police and charged the petitioner along with others for fire arms injuries on his persons. Though the matter was argued at considerable length and the main trust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that three persons are charged for two fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased. It was argued with vehemence that the number of B injuries do not commensurate with the number of the accused and that no bullet marks were found on the surrounding walls.

True that the number of injuries commensurate with the number of the accused but it is not a rule thumb that in every criminal case, the accused charged, are to be released on bail in a mechanical way. The Investigating officer during the spot inspection recovered the empties of different caliber and it was the deceased then injured, who has attributed specific role to the accused with specific weapons of offence. As the case is one of dying declaration and in such eventuality if this Court dissect the material aspect of the case, then it will prejudice the case of the prosecution, even otherwise this is yet to be established on the record after recording pro and contra evidence that whether the deceased while reporting the matter was conscious and oriented in time and space. At present what this Court can assess is that prima facie, the petitioner seems connected with the commission of the offence and could not succeed in making out of his case for bail. This petition being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.