Qari Farhad Vs The State etc.

V

Judgmenf Sheef I N rH E' ='.ffY, tlot "#Ei'#h Ei+ -' BENcH

Cr.Misc. B.A. No. 559-8/2025

Qari Farhad.

Vs, The State etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 12,12.2025

For petitioner: IVIr. Iftikfiar Durrani, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. Abdul Qayum Khan Marwat Asstt:A.G.

For respondents: Nemo (despite service).

,1.:1.***{.rf

ABDUL FAYAZ. J-

1.The petitioner, being charged in case FIR No. l4l dated 15.05.2025, registered under sections 302132411481149 P.P.C at Police Station, Haved, Bannu, has sought his post-arrest bail through the instant petition after the same was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, vide order dated 22.1r.2025.

2.As per the contents of the FIR, on 15.05.2025 at about { 22:30 hours, the complainant, Kashif Khan, while accompanying the dead body of his father, Abdul Halim Khan, reported the incident to the local police at the casualty ward of District Headquarters Hospital, Bannu. He stated that on the

fateful night, he and his father were engaged in irrigating their fields when, at approximately 22:30 hours' accused Farhad, along with 4-5 unknown assailants armed with fltrearms, launched a murderous assault with the intent to kill' As a result of the firing, the complainant's father sustained firearm injuries, fell to the ground, and succumbed to his injuries at the spot, while the complainant himself narrowly escaped unhurt. After committing the offence, the accused persons fled from the scene. The complainant further stated that although no prior motive existed, he had informed the petitioner earlier at "Asr vella" lhal it was their turn for inigation that night' Consequently, the accused named herein were nominated in the

I FIR.

3.As per office note dated 10.12.2025 respondent No'02 (complainant) despite personal service remained absent while the report over the notice issued to the legal heirs of the deceased reveals that respondents No.3 to 5 are his family members, hence, arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as of leamed Asst: A'G for the State heard and record

gone through.

the

4.Upon perusal of the available record, it transpires that hours on occulrence is stated to have taken place at about 22:30

14.05.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 15.05.2025 at 00:20 hours. This reflects a delay of approximately one hour and fifty minutes which, in the circumstances of the case, remains unexplained. The prosecution has not advanced any satisfactory explanation for such delay, which casts doubt on the spontaneity of the reporting.

5.It is further observed that the incident admittedly occurred during night-time' Nonetheless, the FIR is conspicuously silent regarding the presence of any source of light at the place of occurrence' Such omission assumes significance when examined in the context of identification of the alleged assailants. Reliance is placed on "Noorzali v' The Snte and ofherc' l2L2l P Cr. L J Note 121, the relevant portion is:-

n5. It is yet to be determined as to whether the complainant could identify the accused and as to whether the later introduction of the torch light could help the prosecution in identitY of tle assaiants, is a factor which makcs the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry. --- - - - - - - --' ---- - "

6.The site-plan indicates that the distance between the assailants and the complainant party at the relevant time was

approximately 150 paces. Inthe absence ofany stated source of

illumination, the possibility of correct identification from such

V

distance becomes highly doubtful, thereby rendering the prosecution version susceptible to challenge.

7.Only a general role had been ascribed to the accused persons and no details had been given as to which of the accused fired at which part of the body of the deceased, whereas, examination of the post-mortem report reveals a single entry wound on the body of the deceased, with no coresponding exit wound. This solitary injury does not align with the prosecution's allegation that multiple accused, all armed with firearms, indiscriminately opened firing. The medical evidence, therefore, does not coroborate the attribution of a general role of firing to all nominated accused. Reliance is placed on "Saeed Ullah and 02 others v the State and another" 12023 S C M R 1397], the pertinent portion of the judgment is:-

"6. As per the contents of the crime report, the allegation against the petitioners is that they along wtth co- accused while armed with Kalashnikovs launched a murderous assault on the complainant party and due to the firing made by them, the cornplainant sustained tnjuries on his body. There is no dental to this fact that it's a case of promptly lodged FIR as the matter was reported to the Police within an hour of the occurrence. However, we have noted that only a general role has been ascribed to the petitioners and no details have been given as to which petitioner fired at which part of the body of the complainant.--------------

v

8.Additionally, four crime empties of 7.62 bore were recovered from the atleged position of the assailants. The Forensic Science Laboratory has opined that all empties were discharged from the same weapon. This forensic finding is inconsistent with the prosecution narrative involving several armed assailants and constitutes a circumstance that materially favours the petitioner. Reliance is placed on "Sikand.ar Hayat v. The State and another" 12022 SCMR 1981, the relevant part of the judgment is:-

"As per the contents of the crime report, the allegatton levelled against the petitioner -occused is that he along with four co- while armed with /irearms has launched an attack on the complainant party due to fire shots made by them -two ond persons have been done to death' However, we have noted that onlY a general role of firing has been ascribed to ihe petitioner and no details have been given as to what kind of weoPon the { -petitioner had used and on which parts of -the body of the deceased, the alleged fire shots made by him landed. We have also noted that from the place of occurrence, 27 empties were taken into possession, which-according to the report of the FSL were found to be fired frorn one and the satne weopon. In this view of the matter, when the role ascribed to the petitioner is of general nature and according to the irp-ort of FSL only one weapon was used ti the iommission of the crime, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner and until then the petitioner cnnnot be kept behind the bari for an indefinite period' Keeping in view- all the facts and circumstances, the

ir case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

entitling for further inquiry into his guilt."

9.In view of the foregoing circumstances, particularly the unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR, the doubtfrrl identification of the assailants due to absence of any source of light, the considerable inter se distance noted in the site-plan, the medical evidence not being in consonance with the number ofaccused nominated, and the forensic report indicating use of a single weapon, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for further inquiry within the contemplation of Section 497(2), Cr'P'C' Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs' 200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the leamed trial Court/ Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/TvlOD concerned, who shall persons of ensure that the sureties are local, reliable, and sufficient means'

Announced:

I 2.12.2025 /'

* Imranullah PS* JADGE -Sd- Judge

(S.B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

*ANISID ,

n/