UMAR KHAN Versus SHER AFZAL
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The accused/respondents were booked for the above offences vide FIR No.1/2016 under section 302/34, P.P.C. dated 04.02.2016 registered at Police Station Chilas.
2. The accused / respondents succeeded to obtain bail in second round as their first bail application was turned down by the learned trial Judge on 07.06.2016. The brief facts of the case in hand have been narrated in para 3 of judgment dated 07.06.2016. The said para is reproduced as under:--
"Precisely allegations against the accused/petitioners per FIR referred to above, are that on 03-02-2016 at about 7 pm the present petitioners/accused along with their co-accused Muhammad Qasim and the deceased Lalo Rehman proceeded to the Dading Das Mosque. In the mean time the accused/petitioners committed murder of deceased Lalo Rehman by opening fires on him with fire arm. Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased had allegedly illicit relations with one Mst. Nazia daughter of Mashall."
3. The accused moved a second bail application before the trial Court on some fresh grounds which was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2016.
4. The complainant being aggrieved of the judgment of learned trial Court has moved the instant bail cancellation application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that bail granting order is not only arbitrary, illegal but also devoid of any solid reasoning, as the same has not been passed after due application of judicial mind. The learned counsel contended with vehemence that the accused are nominated in promptly lodged FIR and a specific motive for commission of this barbaric act has been mentioned in the FIR, which later proved true as the wife of one of the respondent namely Sher Afzal was also murdered in the same night and the FIR of the said murder is also sub judice before the trial Court. Per learned counsel, there is only a narrow scope to repeat a second bail application on some fresh grounds, which were not available to the accused/respondents, thus the bail illegally granted be recalled in the interest of justice.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused/respondents rebutted the arguments raised at bar by the learned counsel for the complainant/ petitioner and submits that almost all the P.Ws. have been examined by the trial Court but all the P.Ws. failed to connect the accused/respondents with the alleged crime. The learned counsel further submitted that the only independent/star witness was taxi driver namely Mujahedeen, who allegedly took the deceased to the Dading Goharabad, but he was abandoned by the prosecution as his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., was not supporting the version of prosecution. Per learned counsel after abandoning the said star witness, the superstructure of the case built has fallen to ground and the accused/respondents cannot be kept in judicial lockup, on mere allegation, which as per own prosecution have not been proved and there is no further evidence to improve the case of the accused/respondents. The learned counsel prays that the order of the learned trial Court dated 22.12.2016 does not merit interference by this Court especially when a nominated accused namely Qasim has been released by the Police under section 169, Cr.P.C.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and record also perused with their able assistance. The statement of P.W. Mujahedeen, a taxi driver was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the said taxi driver in his statement has stated in unequivocal terms that the deceased alone travelled in his taxi for Dading Goharabad and the fare of Rs. 2000/- was settled which runs counter to the statements of witnesses of last seen. The said P.W. has been abandoned. Although deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not permissible but at the same time the material so far collected can be examined by the Court as bail applications cannot be decided in vacuum. Without commenting on the merits of the case, in my humble view a case of further inquiry is made out against the accused/respondents and the learned trial Court has rightly granted bail to the accused/respondents. It is now a settled law that when an accused becomes entitled for concession of bail, he should not be kept in detention for a minute even. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the trial of the respondents is at the verge of completion and at such stage of trial bail should not be allowed, is devoid of any legal force and no such restriction is placed in section 497, Cr.P.C., and the theme/scheme of section 497, Cr.P.C, depicts that if the trial of a case is likely to be concluded in near future, then normally the bail should not be allowed but it is not a universal principle to be followed in each and every case blindly. Bail if granted by a competent Court considering a case as one of further inquiry, the Chief Court will ordinary not interfere as the grounds for cancellation of bail of all together different, which are not available in the instant case.
8. The result of above discussion is that the petition for cancellation of bail is declined being meritless.
JK/16/GB Petition dismissed.