MEHMOOD KHAN Versus STATE
ORDER
The petitioner is involved in a case registered under section 302/364/365/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad, for the murder of Amjad Mahmood, on the report of Khalid Mahmood.
2. The petitioner has applied for bail on the ground that he has been declared as innocent by one of the Investigating Officers; that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account of the occurrence; that due to divergent opinion of the Investigating Officers, it has become a case of further inquiry; and that the story of the prosecution is doubtful and unrealistic because no motive is attributed to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was found innocent by the D.S.P. on 10‑7‑1996 after recording the statements of a number of persons who spoke about the innocence of the petitioner; that according to the ocular account of occurrence, the petitioner while armed with 30‑bore pistol had fired at the deceased, but no such injury was found on his person nor any such weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the petitioner; and that the motive was also not attributed to the petitioner, hence due to the divergent opinion of the Investigating Officers, the petitioner was entitled to bail as it had become a case of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner was involved in a case which was based on promptly lodged F.I.R., hence there was no question of any substitution or false implication. Though one of the Investigating Officers declared the petitioner as innocent, but he was ultimately challaned to face the trial on the basis of the statements of the eye‑witnesses recorded during the investigation; that reliance of the D.S.P. on the statements of such persons who were not cited as witnesses cannot be considered qua the innocence of the accused in comparison to the statements of eye‑witnesses, who had offered themselves to support the prosecution case at the trial; that the petitioner had allegedly absconded after the commission of the offence and remained at large for about one month and under such circumstances non‑recovery of the weapon of offence would not make any difference for the limited purpose of bail particularly when there is sufficient material on record to link him with the occurrence; that there was no enmity between the parties so as to implicate the petitioner falsely in this case; and that the antecedents of the petitioner were also stated to be dubious as he had been involved in different offences for which twelve cases were registered against him, the particulars of which were placed on record.
5. We have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioner is named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. He has been linked with the killing of the deceased by the eye‑witnesses as he alongwith other co‑accused had abducted the deceased, removed him in a Sazuki Pick‑up and then took his life. The mere fact that one of the Investigating Officers had found him innocent would be of no avail to the petitioner at this stage particularly when the prosecution had been able to collect sufficient evidence against him and has decided to send 'him up for facing the trial. The deeper appreciation such as medical evidence is not corroborative of the eye‑witnesses or the recovery of the weapon of offence has not been effected, would not be possible as compared to the ocular account of occurrence at this stage lest it may cause prejudice to the trial. The petitioner has no case for bail at present. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
N.H.Q./M‑334/L Bail refused.