Bakht Ullah Vs The State & other

('\ I

IUDGMENTSHEET

IN TIIE PESIIAWAR IIIGII COURT,

BANNU BENCH.

(Judicial DePartment)

Cr.MB.A No.526-812 025

Bakht Ullah Vs The State & otherc

JI]DG NT

Date of heafins: 21.1 1.2025

Prcsent:

For Petitioner: Mr. Alamgir Khan. Mandan Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Sawar Khan. Advocate' Mr. Irfanullah Barakzai, Advocate'

For State: Ivk. ehar Ahmadzai Addl.A.G.

x' J.- Bakht Ullah, the

petitioner, is under arrest in case FIR No.l22, dated 05.07.2025, registered under Sections 3021336'81338'Cl20l P.P.C at Police Station Miryan, District Bannu. His request for bail was earlier declined by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu vide order dated 13.08.2025; hence, he has approached this Court for the same relief'

2.As per the contents of the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner/accused is that on 05-07-2025, the complainant, Umer Sher, along with the dead body of his daughter, Mst.

Sabeela Bibi, wife of the petitioner/accused Bakht Ullah, reported the matter to the local police at DHQ HosPital, Bannu. The complainant stated that on the aforementioned date, he was at home when he received information that his daughter, the deceased, was being brought to DHQ Hospital, Bannu, as she was unwell. Upon receiving this information, the complainant, accompanied by relatives, rushed to the hospital, where he found his daughter deceased. Thereafter, the complainant carne to know that at about 08:00 hours, at the place of occurrence, the accused, Bakht Ullah, assaulted his wife, the deceased, with kicks and fists blows. Thereafter, the accused allegedly poured petrol on her and set her on fire, with the intention to commit Qatl- e-Amd. The accused then transported the deceased to DHQ Hospital, Bannu, where she succumbed to her injuries. The alleged motive behind the occur:rence was a family dispute

between the deceased and the accused, with the accused's involvement with another woman. This forms the basis ofthe FIR in the present case'

3.I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties, including the leamed Additional Advocate General representing the State, and have perused the record.

4.Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner/accused is directly implicated in the FIR in relation to the commission of the alleged offence. Although the complainant was not an eyewitress to the incident, on 14- O7-2025,Mst. Ishal Bibi, a minor daughter of the deceased, appeared before the leamed Judicial Magistrate-Il, Bannu, and recorded her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. In her statement, she deposed that her father (the petitioner/accused) first assaulted her mother and thereafter poured petrol on her and set her ablazn. the local Police recovered from the scene two pieces of bumt clothing belonging to the deceased, a lYz-liter bottle containing approximately one-tenth of

petrol, and a small lighter. The recovery of these items aligns with the allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused and provides corroboration in support of the prosecution's version. The offences with which the petitioner/accused stands charged squarely falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.It is well-settled that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment is permissible to determine whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused has committed the alleged offence. Where such grounds are found to exist, bail is liable to be refused.ln Haii Shah Behram v. The State and otherc Q02l SCMR 1983), the Apex Court observed:

"Cfiminal cases, invafiablY resting upon vastly Iacts, do not admit space for hail and fast rules, empirically applicable with any degrce of unanimitY in every situation; in each case culpability o! an accused is to be assessed, having rcgard to ils own peculiar tacts and circumstances' iherelore, detemination of ttsu!ficient grounds" in contradistinction to 'fafiher inquiry" has to be essentiallY assess'ed, wilh a lair degree ot objectivily on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation; woding emPloYed as "there ore no reasonable groands tor believing that the accwed has commilted a

not-bailable olfencett is an expression of higher of impo and, thus, cannot be readily construed in the lace ol material, pfiru facie' constituting the olfence complained. "Every hypothetical question which can be imagined woald not mahe it a case ol lurther inquiry simply lot the rcason that it can be answercd bY the tfial sabsequenlly alter evalualion ol eviilence" IPLD 1994 SuPreme Court 65 (Shah Zaman and others v. The State and anolher)1. Similar$, "mere possibilitY ot Jwther inquiry which exists almost in every criminal case, is no ground lor treating the mattet as one under subsectian (2) of section 497, CI.P.C.Pil) 1988 SuPrcme Court 621 (Asmat ailah Khan Vs. Bazi Khan and another)J. It cleailY manilests that exPrcssion "furlher inquiry" is a concePt Jar from being confounded in subiectivity or to be tounded uPon denials or parallel stofies bY the defence; it reqaires a clear finding detlucible trom the recoril so as to be sttuclurud upon a visiblehefifiable voi.d, necessitating a future probe on the basis of material hithefio unavailabla"

Similarly, in the case of Arbab Ali v.

Khamiso and others reported as 1985 SCMR 195, the APex Court held:

"It needs to be clarified that bail can be allowed (in a case otherwise allegedly falling undet the prohibilion contained in subsection (1) o! section 497) under subsection (2) ol section 197, Cn.P.C. when there are sutficient gtounds, for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused but onlY on the condition when the Police Officer or the Court d anY stage ol investigation' inquiry or tfial, as the case maY be, comes to a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable gtounds

for believing that the accused has commifred a non-Bailable offence. Without this finding bail cannot be allowed uniler sabsection (2) on mete gound that there arc sulftcient grounds ol further inquiry.'

5.In the present case, upon tentative assessment of the material available on record' suffrcient incriminating evidence connects the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, no ground exists to extend the concession of bail to him.

6.For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition stands dismissed. The observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the leamed Trial Court in forming its independent opinion at the time of final adjudication.

Anno unced

aslrl. @llallsteaor

IUDGE

(S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Ft az 1t