Waleed Khan Vs The State etc.

JUDGMENT S}IEET

IN THE PESIIAWARIIIGH COURT,

BANNUBENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr: Misc: BA No. 459-8 t2026.

Waleed Khan.

V.

The State etc:

IUD GMENT

Date of hearing: 16.10.2026.

For petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Sadique Khan, advocate.

FortheState: Mr.Zahid-ul-Haq,Addl:A.G.

For respondent: Mr.Rehmat-ul-Haq Khanaa Khel, advocate.

**{.**r.,*

SABIT ULI-AH J.-

1.The petitioner, Waleed Khan, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 356 dated 22.06.2026, registered under Sections 3021324134, P.P.C, at Police Station Ghoriwala, District Bannu.

The leamed Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, dismissed his bail application vide order dated 16.09.2026.

2.The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and his co- ,l accused, both armed with pistols, opened fire upon the complainant party. Muhammad Yaseen sustained firearm injuries and later succumbed to them. The leamed trial Court declined bail mainly on five grounds: the specific attribution of firing, the medical evidence, the recovery of crime empties and blood-stained earth, the inter se relationship of the parties, and the petitioner's alleged abscondence.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4, The post-mortem report reflects a solitary firearm entry wound, Yn" x Yo", with blackening, on the left side of the face below the left eye towards the left ear, and a corresponding exit wound of %" x Yz".The medical evidence corroborates the cause of death but does not identift the assailant. Two accused are attributed firing with pistols, yet the deceased bears a single fire- shot. The question, therefore, is whose shot proved fatal. A lone entry wound neither excludes the participation of either accused nor fastens liability upon the petitioner. The attribution of the fatal shot can be determined only upon appraisal of the ocular account and the remaining evidence at trial.

5.According to the FSL report dated 14.07.2026, crime empties C-l and C-2 ate of .30-bore and were fired from two different weapons. The subsequent FSL report dated2l'07 '2026 opines that the said empties were not fired from the '30-bore pistol in question. The evidentiary significance of these findings' particularly their nexus with the alleged weapon recovered from the petitioner and the respective roles of the accused, requires tentative assessment in conjunction with the remaining prosecution evidence'

6, ln Sahad v, Mst. Afsheen and anolher (2026 SCMR 220\, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. There, the forensic evidence and the absence of specific attribution of an individual role warranted further

inquiry. That case is distinguishable on facts, as it involved non- matching of the crime empties with the recovered weapon. Its principle governing tentative assessment at the bail stage, however, squarely applies.

7.On a cumulative tentative assessment, the medical and forensic material leaves open the question of who fired the fatal shot. That question cannot be conclusively resolved at this stage, which brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner's alleged abscondence is a relevant circumstance. Standing alone, however, it does not outweigh the other material on record, which makes out a case of further inquiry.

8.Consequently, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail in the instant case, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the leamed trial Court or the Itlaqal Duty Judicial Magistrate concerned. The observations recorded herein are tentative and shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

g. These are the detailed reasons for the short order of even date.

Anno

a Imranullah PSa JADGE

) , (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan '$ut 3'-t' -s6nNr'l s,D ?b o ? I ocT m?6 Court Roo=9