SAJJAD KHAN Versus ADNAN FAISAL

Sajjad Khan, petitioner stands arrested on 4-5-2005, in case F.I.R. No.165 dated 22-10-2004, registered at Police Station Takht Nasrati, District Karak, under section 302/34, P.P.C. read with section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. The petitioner is accused of having on 21-10-2004 at 23-15 hours near First Women College, Chokara, Karak, while sharing common intention with co-accused Zafran, shot to death Muhammad Fayaz, uncle of Adnan Faisal complainant.

3. The petitioner moved applications in the Courts below i.e. Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Karak at Takht Nasrati, for his release on bail, which were rejected by orders dated 10-5-2005 and 15-6-2005 respectively. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer and in support of bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence on the file, which could connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; that petitioner is charged through supplementary statement made by the complainant after about forty days of the registration of case and that co-accused Khurshid, assigned similar role qua the petitioner, has already been released on bail vide order, dated 17-5-2005.

4. Contrarily, learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail application tooth and nail maintaining that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to associate the petitioner with the guilt and he is rightly found not entitled for the grant of bail.

5. It is a settled principle of law that at bail stage, the Court has only to sec whether the accused was connected with the commission of crime or not. For that purpose, only tentative assessment of evidence is to be made and deeper appreciation is not called for. It is the mind of the Court which is to be satisfied that the case under its consideration is fit case or not for grant of bail in line with guidelines covering legal requirements.

6. No doubt it is true that two unknown assailants are alleged to have emerged at the spot and fired at the complainant party resulting into murder of Muhammad Fayaz deceased but it is equally true that complainant in his supplementary statement recorded on 30-11-2004, specifically charged the petitioner and one Muhammad Zafran for the crime in question. The motorcycle alleged to have been used in the commission of offence has also been recovered at the pointation of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail at this stage. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Imtiaz Ahmad and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545 observed:--

"I may observe that a distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like a theft and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole for the purpose of bail. Similarly, a distinction is to be kept in mind between an offence committed by an individual in his private capacity and an offence committed by a public functionary in respect of or in connection with his public office for the aforesaid purpose of bail. In the former cases, the practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. in the absence of an exceptional circumstance may be followed, but in the latter category the Courts should be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. In my view, the above category of the offenders belongs to a distinct class and they qualify to be treated falling within an exceptional circumstance of the nature warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence is less than 10 years' R.I. for the offence involved provided the Court is satisfied that prima facie, there is material on record to connect the accused concerned with the commission of the offence involved."

In view of the foregoing discussion, the bail application fails which is hereby dismissed. The observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand only.

H.B.T./495/P Application dismissed.