Khuda-e-Dad Vs The state and another

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr.MB No.583-D of 2024

Khuda-e-Dad Versus The State and another

JUDGMENT

For petitioner: M/S Salimullah Khan Ranazai and Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocates.

For State: Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Sappal, Additional Advocate General.

For respondent No.2: Mr. Ahmad Ali Khan, Advocate.

Date of hearing 20.02.2025

INAMULLAH KHAN, J.- Being unsuccessful in getting bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan vide order dated 07.12.2024, the petitioner Khuda-e-Dad has moved the instant petition for the same relief in case FIR No.210 dated 30.6.2023, registered under sections 302-324-337-A(ii)(iii)-337-F(v)- 148-149 PPC read with section 15 Arms Act at police station Paharpur, D.I.Khan.

2.The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.6.2023 at 110 hours, complainant Noor Muhammad lodged a report to the effect that on the same day at 1030 hours, he alongwith Abdul Waheed, Abdul Ghaffar, Gul Din, Muhammad Rafique and Abdur Rahim was present in the Baithak of his cousin Abdur Rehman, when his other

cousin namely Khiyal Muhammad came and complained of his beating by the men of Ghulam Qadir. Upon this, they went towards Ghulam Qadir etc. to lodge complainant; that when they reached near the fields of Malik Abdur Rehman, accused Ghulam Qadir, Sher Dad, Khuda-e-Rahm and three unknown accused made firing at them and as a result thereof, he and his relatives Abdul Waheed, Abdul Ghaffar, Gul Din, Muhammad Rafique, Abdul Rahim and Ghulam Jagger got injured while his brother Mada Khan died on the spot.

3.I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.

4.The basic concept of bail is that no innocent person’s liberty is to be curtailed until and unless proved otherwise. Principle of law is that every accused is innocent person until his guilt is proved. It is also a well settled principle that law is not to be stretched in favour of the prosecution but benefit of doubt will go to the accused even at bail stage. Essential pre-requisite for the grant of bail by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C is that the Court must be satisfied from the material collected during investigation by the police that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is

also a well settled principle that at the stage of bail deep scrutiny of evidence is not permissible nor it is the requirement of law. However, this question cannot be decided in vacuum and the Court has to look at the material available for arriving at a tentative opinion as to whether the accused is prima facie connected with the commission of the offence or not.

5.Keeping in mind the above principles, I have scanned the record which reflects that the occurrence took place on 30.6.2023 at 1030 hours, whereas the report has been lodged the same day at 1100 hours which prima facie excludes the possibility of false implication, particularly in the circumstances when the parties are known to each other. At the time of arrest of the petitioner, 7.62 bore rifle No.WA 3168 alongwith 20 live cartridges of the same was recovered from his possession. The rifle recovered from the petitioner and the empties of 7.62 collected from the spot were sent to F.S.L. The report of F.S.L reveals that five empties were fired from the rifle recovered from possession of the petitioner. The offence with which the petitioner is charged entails capital punishment. These factors, on tentative assessment, reasonably connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and he is not entitled to the concession.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Khan Muhammad, co-accused of the petitioner, charged with similar role has been admitted to bail by the august apex Court vide order dated 31.10.2024 and under the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him for the reason that Khan Muhammad accused was not charged by name in the FIR, whereas the petitioner is directly charged by name by the complainant and as such role of the petitioner is not at par with his co-accused who has been granted bail by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.

7.For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.

Announced. – Sd/- Dt:20.02.2025. JUDGE Habib/*

(SB)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inamullah Khan