Naveed vsState

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGMENT

Cr. M/BA No.1920-P/2014 Date of hearing......03/03/2015

Naveed Khan.....Vs.........The State Petitioner(s) by ............................................................................

Respondent(s) by...........................................................................

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J:- Petitioner Naveed Khan seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.264 dated 07.07.2014, registered u/s 302/324/34 PPC, at P.S. Lund Khwar, Mardan.

2.As per prosecution case, complainant Muhammad Khan alongwith his brother Rahim Said and uncle Abdur Rehman were coming to their house after cutting tobacco leaves and when they reached to the place of occurrence, there petitioner alongwith co-accused duly armed with firearms were already present who on seeing the complainant party started firing at them as a result of which Rahim Said was hit and died on the spot while complainant and his uncle

escaped unhurt. Consequently on the basis of his report instant FIR was registered against the accused.

Arguments heard record perused.

3.Though petitioner alongwith co- accused are directly charged by the complainant in the FIR for committing murder of his brother Rahim Said and ineffective firing at them but no specific role has been attributed to any of the accused including the petitioner as to with whose fire shots the deceased was hit which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry u/s 497(2) Cr.PC. Besides, no kind/type of weapon used by accused in the commission of offence has been mentioned by complainant in the FIR which also makes the prosecution case doubtful.

4.As per Post Mortem report, the

deceased was having one firearm entry wound and one exit wound meaning that for single injury three persons including the petitioner are charged without assigning any specific role to them as to with whose firing the deceased was hit. Furthermore, the empties of 7.62 bore

recovered from the spot have also not been sent to the FSL in order to ascertain that these were fired from one weapon or more. Besides, petitioner has been arrested after two hours of the occurrence on the same day by the local police but as per his Card of arrest, no crime weapon has been mentioned to be recovered from his immediate possession which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry for the purpose of bail.

5.Petitioner despite remaining in police custody has made no confession before the competent Court which could connect him with the commission of offence. He is behind the bar since his arrest and is no more required to the local police for further investigation therefore keeping him behind the bar would serve no useful purpose.

6.In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial

Court concerned who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.

Announced.

Dt.03.03.2015.

JUDGE

“A.Qayum”