Naib Khan vs State

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGMENT

Cr. M/BA No.1319-P/2015 Date of hearing......25/02/2015

Naib Khan.....Vs.........The State

Petitioner(s) by Mr. Abdul Fayaz Advocate. Respondent/complainant(s) by Mr. Jalalud Din Akbar Azam Advocate & Ms.Mamrez Gul for the State.

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J:- Petitioner Naib Khan seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.324 dated 03.08.2013, registered u/s 302/34 PPC, at P.S. Tull, District Hangu.

2.As per prosecution case, complainant Muhammad Hakeem was present alongwith his brother Muhammad Akhtar in his shop when petitioner hung clothes in front of their shop due to which customers were facing problem. On which Muhammad Akhtar went to the shop of petitioner for removing the cloth, but petitioner and absconding co-accused Nazeef Khan attacked him. The absconding co-accused caught hold of Muhammad Akhtar while petitioner gave him dagger/knife

(khanjar) blows to him as a result of which he sustained injuries who while shifting to the hospital, succumbed to his injuries. Consequently on the basis of his report, instant FIR was registered against the accused.

Arguments heard record perused.

3.Perusal of record reveals that petitioner is directly charged in the FIR with a specific role of stabbing the deceased with ‘Khanjar/knife’ due to which he sustained injuries and then expired on the way to the hospital. The ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence, site plan and recovery of crime weapon having blood stains at the pointation of petitioner which fully connects him with the commission of offence.

4.So far as the plea of cross case taken by petitioner is concerned, it needs no reiteration that in cases of counter-version the rule followed is that if one party is granted bail the other party is also entitled to the same relief, but that rule would be applicable in cases of genuine counter-version.

In the instant case I find that mere filing of cross case against each other cannot be considered a

good ground for release of the petitioner on bail unless an element of genuineness is there.

Furthermore time of the occurrence is different which is also negated by medico legal evidence as according to petitioner, he sustained injuries through sharp edged weapon whereas the medical reports discloses the injury sustained by petitioner as ‘simple’. Besides, it is by now firmly settled that each case is to be decided on the basis of material and evidence available on the record of that case and as observed in Nasir Muhammad Wassan and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 501 and Qamar Abbas and 2 others v. Sohail Siddique and another 1998 MLD, 1132 that mere existence of cross F.I.Rs or cross-cases against each other cannot be ground for grant of bail. It was also held in Allah Wisaya and 2 others v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 105 that an accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right for reason of a counter-version or a counter-case.

5.The offence is heinous in nature

affecting the society at large and also falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.PC. There

are sufficient materials available on file which prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of offence. Besides, trial against petitioner has already commenced wherein most of the witnesses have been examined and is likely to be concluded in the near future therefore, petitioner cannot be granted bail at this stage.

In view of what has been observed

above, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. The office is directed to send the record back to the trial Court so that the trial could be concluded expeditiously.

Announced.

Dt.25.02.2015.

JUDGE

“A.Qayum”