Bacha Zeb VS The State

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department)

Cr.M (B.A) No. 517-M/2015

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 14.12.2016

Petitioner(s): (Bacha Zeb and two others) by M/S Sher Muhammad Khan and Ihsanullah Advocates.

Respondents: Mr. Hazrat Rehman, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, Assistant A.G. for the State.

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.- All the

three accused-petitioners are jointly looking for their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R No. 418 dated 23.10.2016 under sections 302/34 PPC registered at Police Station Talash, District Dir Lower.

2.Prior to, these accused-petitioners had jointly filed application for their release on bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Chakdara at Camp Court Timergara which was dismissed vide a slipshod order.

3.The Murasila culminated in the first information report would reveal that the officer incharge of the police station was present in his office who received information that a dead corpse Tajamul* [B.A No. 517-M of 2016 Bacha Zeb and others Vs. The Sate and one other]

is lying in the fields of Nasafa village. He arranged his squad and rushed to the place of occurrence where he found a corpse soaked with blood. On his personal search in the presence of Gul Karim and Sher Wali Jan who were residents of Upper Dir, from the right side pocket of his waistcoat a copy of NIC contained therein was recovered while from the left side pocket of his waistcoat a copy of license of 30 bore pistol alongwith cash amount of Rs.1,48,830/-, 2000/- Saudi Riyal, mobile set Nokia containing SIM card and a 30 bore pistol around the body of deceased were also recovered. As by that time no one was available for making a report, thus, incharge police station has become complainant of this case.

4.Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent alongwith the learned Assistant A.G, record with their valuable assistance gone through.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on 2005 YLR 1220 (Muhammad Bashir Guraya Versus. Raja Muhamamd Irshad and another), 2008 P.Cr.L.J (Lahore) 1578 (Janved Iqbal Versus. The State), 2009 YLR 301 Tajamul* [B.A No. 517-M of 2016 Bacha Zeb and others Vs. The Sate and one other]

(Muhammad Anis Versus. The State), 2015 YLR (Peshawar) 1952 (Fazal Amin alias Toary Versus.

Shahid Zaman and another), 2014 MLD (Peshawar) 410 (Ahmad Jan Versus. The State and 5 others) and 2008 MLD (Peshawar) 1492 (Inamaulla Versus. The Sate and 2 others.

5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant referred to 2011 MLD (Peshawar) 691 (Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others Versus. The State and 2 others), 2012 SCMR 1945 (Muhammad Yousaf Butt Versus. P.C Abdul Latif Shar and another), 2016 MLD (Peshawar) 1619 (Mst.

Nagina Gul Ali Versus. Tariq and others) and 1990 SCMR 346 (Abdul Aziz Versus. Saleh

Muhammad).

6.Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondent while relying on the dictums referred developed their own arguments pro and contra, the former for acceptance of the bail application while the latter for its rejection. The Sate being represented by the learned Assistant Advocate General also argued his own stance for rejection of the application.

Tajamul* [B.A No. 517-M of 2016 Bacha Zeb and others Vs. The Sate and one other]

7.This is a blind murder case. There is no witness who has come forward till investigation is undergoing as to who has killed the deceased identified as Razaqat Khan. It is a night occurrence and all the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C would reveal that being not eye witnesses, each one has charged the accused-petitioners on surmises as there is previous blood feud amongst family members of the accused-petitioners and the deceased party.

8.As far as motive of previous blood feud is concerned, the question would yet arise whether the petitioners have committed the crime in such brutal manner or implication of each one is result of previous enmity/motive which will be considered and determined by the trial Court after recording evidence. As far as statements under section 161, Cr.P.C of the persons who will stand as prosecution witnesses, the evidentiary value of the same statements being circumstantial in nature will be determined during trial and cannot be considered at this stage.

9.As case of each petitioner falls under section 497 (2), Cr.P.C, the matter is of further Tajamul* [B.A No. 517-M of 2016 Bacha Zeb and others Vs. The Sate and one other]

inquiry, therefore, this bail application is allowed and petitioners are released on bail provided each petitioner furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.

Announced.

JUDGE

Tajamul* [B.A No. 517-M of 2016 Bacha Zeb and others Vs. The Sate and one other]