MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE

Muhammad Nawaz petitioner has approached this Court under section 498, Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in case F.I.R. No. 1143, dated 1-10-1993 of Police Station Haripur registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. The petitioner has failed at the two lower Courts in obtaining bail.

2. One criminal case was registered through F.I.R. No.1143, dated 1-10-1993 at Police Station Haripur under section 302/34, P.P.C. for the murder of one Muhammad Sajjad. Facts enumerated in the F.I.R. tend to show that the complainant and deceased Muhammad Sajjad were going to the Village Mosque for offering Jumma Prayers. At about 13-43 hours they reached near Orchard known as Soka. They saw Nawaz accused-petitioner alongwith Khalid and Sharafat co-accused standing on the side of the path. Accused Nawaz was armed with a .30 bore pistol. On seeing the complainant and the deceased the two accused Khalid and Sharafat are stated to have raised Lalkara while Nawaz accused has been charged to have fired effectively on the deceased with his .30 bore pistol. The deceased was hit and fell down to the ground and succumbed to the injury there and then. The three accused allegedly made their escape good from the spot. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Mst. Wasim Jan and Mst. Mubarak Jan besides other co-villagers present on the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Mst. Wasim Jan and Mst. Mubarak Jan P.Ws. have not seen the present petitioner and, therefore, their evidence is of no avail to the prosecution. He further stressed that there are six entry wounds and one abrasion on the person of the deceased whereas the empties recovered from the spot are only four in number. He further stated that the prosecution has not been able to explain the presence of blackening on injuries Nos.3 and 4. It was further alleged that the two witnesses, namely, Khan Baz and Yaqoob have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. and, therefore, their evidence is of no credit. Learned State Counsel assisted by Mr. Saeed Akhtar Khan, Advocate repelled the arguments of the counsel for petitioner by submitting that the accused has been directly charged in promptly lodged F.I.R. It was further argued that the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and there was no possibility of misidentification. It was also asserted that the solitary statement of the complainant was sufficient to create reasonable grounds for believing that the accused-petitioner has committed non-bailable offence he is charged with.

4. The prosecution witnesses have been persistently insisting that the present petitioner had fired with his pistol effectively on the deceased. The charge was levelled against the present petitioner in the F.I.R. and the same has been supported by all the witnesses of the prosecution. There is no doubt with regard to the weapon of crime because the medical evidence has emphatically supported the prosecution case by declaring 'all the injuries to have been caused by fire-arm and the dimensions of the injuries tend to indicate that they have been caused by a weapon of the same calibre. The recovery of blood-stained earth from point No. l and the recovery of empty shells of .30 bore and one cartridge of .30 bore from place shown "A" in the site plan also corroborates the prosecution version. Similarly, the two P. Ws. named in the F.I.R. Mst. Wasim Jan and Mst. Mubarak Jan have also supported the prosecution by stating that on their immediate arrival on the spot they heard the complainant crying that his grand-son was murdered by the present petitioner alongwith his two co-accused, namely, Khalid and Sharafat.

5. The Courts are not allowed to go deep in the appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. The maximum favour which can be asked from a Court at bail stage is that it may make a tentative assessment of the evidence and should see as to whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioner or otherwise. In the present case there exists prima facie case and reasonable grounds are present to believe that the present petitioner appears to have committed the offence he is charged with. I, therefore, find no merit in the present petition and dismiss the same.

N.H.Q./1616/P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.