Salim Malik etc VS State etc.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department) Cr.M.BA. No. 314-M of 2016.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 23.8.2016.

Petitioners:- (Salim Malik & 1 another) by Mr. Sanaullah, Advocate.

Respondent:- ( the State & 1 another) by Mr. Sabir Shah, A.A.G and Muhammad Saeed Khan Shangla, Advocate.

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.- Petitioners seek bail in case FIR No. 335 dated 06.7.2016, under sections 302, 324, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Warai, District Dir Upper, as the concession of bail was refused to them by the learned lower Court vide its order dated 23.7.2016.

2.As per contents of the F.I.R, the allegation against accused/petitioners is that they in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of one Zia-ur-Rahman, paternal cousin of the complainant.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.Perusal of the record reveals that the accused/petitioners are directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R by the complainant for making an attempt on the lives of the complainant-party. The version of prosecution is supported by statements of Nawab

the eyewitnesses, medical evidence, motive, which is stated to be dispute over the water and recoveries of empties from point 3 & 4 were effected from the spot.

The point 3 shows the presence of accused Saleem Malik, petitioner No. 1, while point 4 is the place where petitioner No. 2 has been shown. Moreover, though the effective role of firing upon the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Amjad Ali, but the present accused/petitioners actively participated in the commission of offence, as they were duly armed with weapon and also made firing upon the complainant- party, so, their role within the meaning of section 34 PPC is prima facie surfaced. In this respect, reliance is placed on "2008 P.Cr. L. J 351 (Shariat Court (AJ & K) and 2009 P.Cr. L. J 1058 (Lahore).

5.So, there is sufficient material available on record, which, prima facie, connect the accused/petitioners, with the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. therefore, on tentative assessment of the case, accused/petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.

Nawab

6.Counsel for the petitioners also submitted before the Bar that section 324 PPC may please be added in the instant bail petition, which has inadvertently not been added, hence, the same oral request is allowed and section 324 PPC be considered part of this bail petition. Office is directed to make necessary entries in this regard in the relevant register as well as memo of bail application.

7.In view of the above, the petition for the grant of bail being meritless stands dismissed.

Announced Dt: 23.8.2016

JUDGE

Nawab