Before GERAZ KHAN vs THE STATE and another

Petitioner Geraz Khan stands involved in case F.I.R No,109 dated 2-10-2003 registered at Police Station, Kakki, District Bannu at the instance of complainant Umar Daraz Khan for offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. The petitioner has moved instant petition under section 497, Cr.P.0 for his relase on bail after refusal of the same from the 'two Courts below vide orders dated 12-1-2004 and 29-1-2004 respectively.

2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he on 2-10-2003 at 1700 hours alongwith his co-accused committed the murder of Umar Ayaz, brother of the complainant and attempted at the life of complainant.

3. Mr.Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no impartial, non-partisan and credible eyewitness to the occurrence; that there is nothing in support of the motive as alleged in the F.I.R and that there are no reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and his case not only requires further probe but he is also entitled to reap benefit of doubt even at bail stage. He placed reliance on 1997 SCM R 915.

4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State assisted by Mr. Naimatullah Jamal, Advocate for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application contending that prosecution is in possession of adequate evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of crime; that petitioner remained fugitive from law for sufficient long time and that co-accused of the petitioner are still at large and grant of bail to the petitioner would amount to give premium to his co-accused.

5. An accused would only be entitled to the discretionary relief of bail when on the tentative assessm ent of material brought before it, the Court reaches a conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence, or an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, and in absence of any such finding to this effect, the Court is debarred to hold that the case is of further inquiry entitling the accused to bail within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on record, I find that in view of the express allegations in the F.I.R. Nomination of the petitioner as an accused, the specific role attributed to him, recovery of ten empties from the place where his presence has been shown and abscondence, no case for grant of bail has been made out. The application fails which is hereby rejected.

7. Before parting with this order, I would like to make it clear that observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the orderin-hand only. Since challan has already been put in Court, the trial Court is directed to conclude the case as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months.