Farakh Zad & another Vs The State and others

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, BANNU BENCH

JUDlCIAL DEPARTMENT Cr.Misc. (BA) No 394-B/2026 Farakh Zad & another Vs

The State and others.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing.. ..........10.9.2026................. .....

For Petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Shah Nawaz khan Sikandari, Advocateo.

For State Mr. Abdul Waheed Khattak, MG.

For respondents Mr. Shoukat Khan, Advocate.

MUHAMMAD TARIQ AFRIDI, J.. B y this single judgment, I intend to decide the instant bail petition (No.394-Bl2026) and the connected bail petition (No.402- 8/2026), as both arise out of the same incident. The former a pertains to FIR No. 401, dated 09.8.2026, under Sections 3021324/34 PPC, whereas the latter arises out of the cross- FIR No.40l-A of the same date, registered under the same provisions at police station Ghoriwala, District Bannu. Through Bail Petition No.394-Bl2016, accused / petitioners Farak,hZad and Shariat Ullah, while through the connected bail petition No.402-812026, accused/petitioners Atta Ullah and Saqib Ullah seek their release on post-arrest bail.

2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case in FIR No.401, is that on 09.8.2026, at 18:20 hours, the complainant, Atta Ullah, while present with the dead body of his brother Waheed Ullah at DHQ Hospital Bannu, reported that, earlier that day he along with his brother Waheed Ullah

was proceeding from their house towards their landed propeffy. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, accused Farah Zad and Shariat Ullah, both co-villagers, allegedly armed with Kalashnikovs, appeared and started firing at them with the intention to commit their murder, as a result of which Waheed Ullah sustained firearm injuries and died at the spot, while the complainant luckily escaped unhurt. After the occurrence, the accused allegedly fled from the scene. Motive for the occurrence, as alleged, is a dispute over landed property.

3.The counter-version embodied in FIR No.401-A, relates to the same date, time and place. According to complainant Banawaz Khan son of Mir Wali Khan alias Khan Badshah, he was present at the place of occurrence with his nephew Ahmad Ullah when accused Atta Ullah ? son of Mir Taj Ali Khan allegedly armed with a pistol and Saqib Ullah son of Atta Ullah armed with a Kalashnikov emerged there and opened firing upon them with the intention to commit their murder. As a result, Ahmad Ullah sustained firearm injuries, while the complainant Banawaz escaped unhurt. The injured Ahmadullah was taken to the hospital; however, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The motive for the offence was stated to be a dispute over landed property.

4.Argumentsheard.Recordperused.

5.A tentative assessment of the available record reveals that the two cases constitute counter-versions ofone and the same occurrence, involving the same date, time, place and rival parties. Atta Ullah Khan, the complainant in FIR No.40l stands nominated as an accused in the cross-

case FIR No.40l-A. Likewise Banawaz Khan, the complainant in FIR No.40l-A, is the brother of FarakhZad, who is an accused in FIR No.40l. Moreover, Ahmad Ullah deceased in the cross-case was the son of accused Farakh Zad. Thus, one person from each side lost his life in the occurence. Waheed Ullah died at the spot, whereas Ahmad Ullah succumbed to his firearm injuries while being taken to hospital.

6.In these peculiar circumstances, each parly has accused the other of initiating the aggression and the possibility that either side has withheld or suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence camot at this stage, be ruled out. The investigating agency has also treated the two cases as cross-versions of the same incident. In such a sifuation, ? the question as to which party was the aggressor and which was aggressed upon ordinarily requires a deeper appraisal of the evidence. Such an exercise cannot appropriately be undertaken at the bail stage and must be left to the trial court after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to produce their respective evidence. Reliance in this regard may usefully be placed upon "Manan Ali and others-Vs- The State Through Prosecutor General Punjab and others" (2026 SCMR 442), "Khizar Hayat-Vs-The State" (2024 SCMR 1605), "Muhammad Umar Waqas Barakat Ali Vs. The State" (2023 SCMR j30), "Muhammad Zahid Umar- Vs-The State and others" (2016 SCMR 1246), "Muhammad shahzad siddique-vs-state" (PLD 2009 sc 58) and "Shoaib Mehmood Butt-Vs-lfiikhar-ul-Haq and others" (1996 SCMR r845).

7.For the aforesaid reasons, and in light of the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above, I

am persuaded to hold that sufficient grounds exist to bring the cases of petitioners within the ambit of further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, both bail petitions are allowed. The accused/ petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to their tumishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) each, with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate / MOD, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable, and persons of suffrcient means. .

8.Before parting, with this judgment, it is clarified that the observations made herein are purely tentative and confined solely to the disposal of the present bail petitions. They shall neither prejudice the case of either party nor influence the trial court, which shall decide both cases independently, strictly on their own merits and in accordance with law.

tL -sd- Announced:

lhsan

I,N

JUDGE

JUDGE

(S.B)

Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi

c d7 gc stl 1$ t rP o' ooo*o"