Izat khan Vs the State

I

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWARHIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(J utl i c i a I D ep artme nt)

Cr.M B.A. No. 469-M/2017.

JADGMENT

Date of hearing: 10.11.2017

Petitioner:- (Iz.st Khan ) bv Mr. Safdor Khqn, Atlvocste,

Respondents:- (The State & I another) bv Mr. Rufiq Ahmad, Astt: Advocste Generul und Mn Iftikhsr Ahmad Nasir, Advocste.

MOIIAMMAD II}IIAHIM KHAN J.- Later, on arrest of this Petitioner Izat Khan on 08.08.2017 in an occurrence that happened on 11 .10.2014 being indicted in case FIR No. 527 dated 17.10.2011 charged under sections 302,337 F (i), 34 PPC registered at Police Station Wari District Dir Upper, thereby is looking for his bail after arrest.

Prior to, for the grant of similar f, ,r)- relief the Petitioner presented an application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Iudgellzafi Zila Qazi Dir Upper at Wari, which was dismissed by an order dated 19.09.2017 .

N;rt, (S.8.) Ilon'bh Mr' Jutlic.[roh!nrn!d lb.,hin lihrtr

3 This is another attempt for all the grounds enumerated in this application with the following prayer:-

"It is lherefore, humbly prayed lhtl by accepting lhis petition, the sccused/Petitioner mo! kindly be releosed on boil till the final decision of the inslont cose."

4 The asservations as per contents of the First Information Report against the Petitioner are that he alongwith Aziz-ur- Rehman caught hold of Faiz Muhammad husband of the complainant, who was killed by Shah Zoor Khan co-accused by giving him spade blows, whereas ZafarKhan is charged for causing injury to the complainant Mst. Bakht Mahal Bibi on her left hand wrist through stick blows.

5 Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for f, ')' the complainant and learned Astt: Advocate General for the State, record with their assistance gone through.

6 Learned counsel for the Petitioner referred ro 2017 SCMR 279 " Ourbttn Ali vs N!ub (S.8.) llor'UIenli Ju!lic. l\lolrrnntrrd lbrnhim lil'nn

J

the Stote snd otlters" 2016 SCMR 1593 " Muhsmmad Shsli and others vs the Stote and others", 2009 SCMR 299 " Mitho Pitafi vs the Stste 2016 SCMR 1520 " Muhummsd

Aslam vs the Stute and otherstl ,2011 MLD 155 (Karoclti) " Niaz Ali vs the Stefie' 2012 YLR 590 " Rsheem Dad und 2 others vs the Stste PLD 2010 Ksraclti 384 " Ghulcrm Rasool vs the State" and 2014 P Cr. LJ 352 (Lshord " Muhammad Ahmad Javed vs the Stste and others. In the light of these dictums of the Hon'ble superior Courts prayed for the grant of bail in favour of the Petitioner. Inversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned Astt: Advocate General for the State placed reliance on Lsl Zomeen vs the Stute ond anolher", 2003 P Cr.LJ 1691 (Peshawor) " Sslir Ullah vs the Stste and another", 2005 P Cr. LJ 748 (Peshowsr) " Bsshir Khon vs the Stste snd unother 2013 MLD 810 (PesItawail t/ Ruz.a Khsn vs the Stote and nnother ,,, 2014 ML D 437 (Peshswoil " Srtitl Muhammad vs Muh ammocl Sirsi-ud-Din ond N!*rb (S.BJ llon'l,l.Irr. J!stic. Nloh{nnnrJ lbrihim Kh.n

others" snd PLJ 2012 S.C. 169 " Muhsmmad Abbosi vs the Stote thereby prayed for utter dismissal of the bail petition.

7 It is as pointed out that either the Petitioner has remained in absconsion for sufficient length of time, yet his role is on better footing than role assigned to co-accused Zafar Khan, who was already enlarged on bail and after facing trial eventually was acquitted. Yes, there is mark difference between role of the accused/Petitioner and that of co-accused Zafar Khan, as the Petitioner is only charged for catching hold of the deceased, thus, in the attending circumstances of the case, his role would require further inquiry into his guilt therefore, at this juncture he is entitled to the concession ofbail.

tt) 8 Even otherwise, it is settled by now that mere absconsion of an accused by itself is no ground for refusal of bail, if otherwise, case of accused/Petitioner is of further inquiry. In this respect wisdom is derived from the Nrrnb (S.8.) llon'bknIr.Ju!ric. Mohrnurd lbrrhin Khtrn

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as as "Ehsun Ullah Vs Th e stilte,, (2012 scMR 1137), wherein relevant citation speaks off:- "It is settled lsw that in s case calling for further inquiry into the guilt of an uccused person bsil is to be ullowed to him us of right und not by way of grace or concession snd in such a csse mere ubsconsion of the relevant sccused person msy not be suflicient to refuse bail to him."

9.In view of the above, the accused/Petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and q- L). men of means.

10.These are the reasons of my short order ofeven date.

11.Needless to mention that the

observations made above are purely tentative Nrsab (S.I}.) llon'Ul.nlr.Justt. iuohrnnnnd lbr!tim Xhrn

in nature and should in no way prejudice the case ofeither party during trial.

Announced I ,)- Dt: 10.1 1.2017 r- JUDGE

{\t" ,\r.

N,*xb (S.B.) llotr'bt. Nlr. J ustic. ltlohnNnrd tbrrlnn (tr