MEHBOOB SHAH Versus STATE

1. MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.‑‑‑ Petitioner Mehboob Shah has moved for seeking leave to appeal against an order dated 27‑10‑1994 passed by the Peshawar High Court declining bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 535 dated 15‑11‑1992 of police Station East Cantonment, Peshawar.

2. In the first instance the petitioner moved a Magistrate at Peshawar for bail but his application was rejected ‑on 13‑9‑1994. He moved learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, who too, declined to order his release on bail under an order dated 29‑9‑1994.

3. Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was innocent, that the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, that the version given in the FIR was belied by the inquest report and medical evidence, and that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner has been accepted by the investigating agency and his name has been put in column No.2 of the challan. The learned counsel took exception to observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in para. 3 of the impugned order.

4. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be adequately considered by the trial Court. The learned Single Judge in the High Court under the impugned order has given following grounds for refusal of bail .‑

5. "The accused‑petitioner is directly charged in the FIR by name. The occurrence has taken place in a broad daylight in front of the Sessions Court, Peshawar. The petitioner has remained absconder from the date of occurrence i.e. 15‑11‑1992 till 29‑6‑1994. He has not furnished any plausible explanation for his absence for the said period. Motive for the offence is admittedly previous blood feud between the parties. The eye‑witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, whose names have been cited by the complainant in the FIR and their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence was natural, as they were attending the Sessions Court, Peshawar in a bail matter in the previous murder case, wherein' also the accused‑ petitioner is charged. As the challan has already been submitted in Court and the trial is likely to commence soon, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1992 SCMR 1418 the accused petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail."

6. The learned Single Judge in chamber appears to have taken correct view and we are not inclined to interfere with said order. Consequently leave to appeal is declined and this petition stands dismissed.

7. N.H.Q./M‑2194/S Leave refused.