KAFAYATULLAH Versus STATE

ORDER

This is second application for grant of bail to Kafayat Ullah and Ehsan Ullah petitions in a case under sections 364,302/201 P.P.C. registered at P.S. Badana, vide F.I.R No.40/87 dated 4‑4‑1987.

2. The prosecution case is, that on 30‑3‑1987, Shamshair, Sarfraz and Muhammad Amin co‑accused abducted Bahadur alias Bhagi (deceased) from Adda Muhammad Wala. They took him to Zafarabad. Subsequently, he was removed to Dera of Umar Hayat situated in village Badana. From village Badana Bahadur was removed to Chak No.131/N. HC was belaboured in village Badana and Chak No.131/N. He died at Chak No.131/N and his dead-body was removed to some unknown place. During investigation, the police collected evidence to the effect that the petitioners were not only party to the crime but had inflicted injuries to the deceased.

3. The earlier application for grant of bail to the petitioner was rejected by me on 18‑10‑1987. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the rejection of the earlier application of the petitioners, fresh grounds have arisen in due course of events, which may entitle the petitioners to the concession of bail, inasmuch as Saee Muhammad, Shamas‑ud‑Din, Ali Muhammad, Sikandar Hayat, Shamsher Khan P.Ws. in their statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and Farced and Manzoor P.Ws in affidavits sworn by them, have not only refused to support the prosecution but have also disowned their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. The earlier application was rejected on the ground that in view of' the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Mumtaz, Saee Muhammad, Shamas‑ud‑Din, Shamshair, Sarang, Zulfiqar, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws, it could not be said that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had p not committed the crime. Out of the aforesaid witnesses the statements of Umar Hayat, grandfather of the petitioners, Sarang, Zulfiqar, Muhammad Nawaz, Hayat and Muhammad Khan P.Ws. are still intact. In their statements recorded under section 104 Cr.P.C. and affidavits, Saee Muhammad, Shamas‑ud‑Din, Ali Muhammad, Sikandar Hayat, Shamshair Khan, Manzoor and Fareed have not exonerated the petitioners from the commission of crime. They simply stated that they know nothing about the occurrence. That being the position, it cannot be said that any fresh valid and sound ground for grant of bail to the petitioner, has arisen after the rejection of the earlier application. The statements made by Umar Hayat grand father of the petitioners, Sarang, Zulfiqar, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Khan P Ws. connect the petitioners with the abduction and the murder of the deceased. The earlier application was dismissed vide detailed order dated 18-10-1987.

For what has been said above, there being no justification to allow bail to the petitioner. This petition is also dismissed.

S.A./K‑211/L

Bail refused.