QAMAR Versus State
ALI BAIG, J.--- Through the instant bail petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioners/accused seek post arrest bail in case FIR No. 12/2017, dated 18-8-2017, registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F, 109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Jal, District Diamer.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioners/accused had filed a bail petition in the court of the Additional District Judge Diamer, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide bail order dated 16-4-2019, hence, this petition.
3. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case are that, on
18-8-2017, at 15:00 hours the complainant namely Azizullah and his companions namely Hidayatullah and Azhar Ullah were present in the Niyat Bazar. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners/accused and their co-accused namely Khan Bhadur son of Bhato resident of Lomer Niyat armed with fire arms came on the spot and started opening fires on the son of complainant namely Abdul Hamid and his nephew namely Muhammad Yousuf who were sitting in a shop with intention to kill them, which hit the deceased Mohammad Yousuf and injured Abdul Hamid and they sustained bullet injuries. The complainant and his companions along with injured persons proceeded towards Police Station Jal and on the way to Police Station the deceased Muhammad Yousuf succumbed to his injuries. The occurrence was allegedly taken place on the instigation and abetment of co-accused namely Abdul Nasir Jan, Safaid, and Haibat. Motive behind the occurrence stated to be previous tussal/enmity between the parties. The occurrence was witnessed by eye witnesses namely Hidayat Ullah and Azharullah besides the complaint.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/ accused contended that there are contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and contents of FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that there is also contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that details of injuries sustained by the victims have not been mentioned in the injury sheet, thus, case of the petitioners/accused requires further inquiry and the petitioners are entitled for concession of bail.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused by contending that the petitioners/ accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of effective firing on the deceased and injured person. The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. AG further argued that the weapons of offence i.e. Kalashnikovs have been recovered on the pointation of the petitioners/accused and eye-witnesses have witnessed to occurrence. The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. AG further argued that the present petitioners had absconded immediately after the occurrence and have remained absconder for about one year. Concluding their arguments the learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. AG argued that offences under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., thus, the accused/petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me.
7. Perusal of record reveals that both the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and specific role of effective firing has been attributed to the both the petitioners/accused in the FIR. Names of eye-witnesses have been disclosed in the FIR and eye-witnesses have fully implicated the present petitioners/accused in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Medical evidence also supports prosecution's version. Both the petitioners/accused had absconded immediately after the occurrence and they remained fugitive from law for a considerable period of time. The offences alleged against the petitioners/accused fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure which disentitle the petitioners for grant of bail.
8. The main thrust of contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that, there are some slight contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and contents of FIR. There are also contradictions in ocular account and medical evidence. As far as conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence and contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses and contents of FIR pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused are concerned, suffice it to observe that deeper appreciation of evidence is neither desirable nor permissible at the bail stage. My this view is fortified by case law reported in 2017 SCMR 324.
9. For the forgoing reasons, this petition having no merits is hereby dismissed and bail facility is declined to the accused/petitioners.
SA/139/GB Petition dismissed.