RASHEED ALAM alias SHAMSHAD Versus State

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for grant of post arrest bail in case under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.35/2012 dated 9.8.2012 registered at Police Station Darel.

2. The post arrest bail of the petitioner was refused by the learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 19.4.2019 and being aggrieved from the said order the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court for concession of bail.

3. The case of prosecution narrated in the FIR, has been narrated in para 2 of the impugned judgment, which is reproduced for the purpose of convenience.

"The complainant Saddar son of Syed Mehmood furnished written complaint in Police Station Darail to the effect that on 9.8.2012 after Asar Prayer there was a scuffle between Saifur Rehman and Raza resident of Shaga Manikal which resulted in firing. The complainant alongwith Alim Khan and Mautabar Khan proceeded towards the place of firing as they reached near the house of Jangi Bahadur accused Rehman Sher, Furat Khan, Shafa and Razaullah resident of Manikal Pain opened indiscriminate firing upon them which resulted in murder of Alim Khan while Aman Saeed received gun-shot injuries, in the meantime the petitioner alongwith co-accused namely Shamshad, Sanaullah and Sher Ahmad opened firing causing injury upon Nizam-ud-Din. The motive is stated to be quarrel between Saifur Rehman and Mujawar Khan."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a sudden fight, which ensued after a scuffle between the parties. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Abdul Haleem has been released on bail by the learned trial Court on the ground of further inquiry. Accused Nasrullah has been murdered and accused Shabbir Ahmad has been released by the Police under section 169, Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner is identical to the case of his co-accused, who has been allowed bail by the learned trial Court. The law of consistency is fully attracted in the case of petitioner. The recovery effected from the petitioner is also fake as the same has not been sent to Forensic Expert for expert opinion.

5. When confronted the learned Dy. A. G. contended that the petitioner/ accused is directly charged in the FIR, with a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased Nizam ud Din. The petitioner/accused remained absconder for a long period of 6 years, hence he is not entitled for concession of bail.

6. The record reveals that the accused is directly charged in the FIR, with a specific role of causing injuries to deceased Nizam-ud-Din. After commission of offence the petitioner/ accused went underground and was arrested after a period of 6 years. As evident from the judgment/order of learned trial Court, the accused/petitioner committed another offence and FIR No. 1/2018 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. was registered against him., The grant of bail to co-accused vide judgment/order dated 4.8.2018, does not entitle the petitioner for concession of bail as "two wrongs do not make one right". The legality/ propriety of the judgment/order relating to the co-accused Abdul Haleem, dated 4.8.2018, will be examined at appropriate time, if challenged by the State or complainant.

7. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for the concession of bail, which is dismissed.

MQ/84/GB Bail refused.