Saeed Akbar VS the State.

lL/ -t rN THE PEsHAWAP Ht6t-,I COUPT. TITN@PA BENCH

PUL Q,IZA). SWAT

Criminol lrtisc. BA No. 592-M o.f 2OLT

d Akbor son Mir Akbor Khrn r/o VillageDomel Teshil Drosh *t a,.

itrol Pr'esently r:onfined in centrol Jail Chitrol ACCUSEDI NERs o 'i\. "..''.,'[.r..:.

i lr t VERSUS

r) The Stat e

2)Mooz Ullq.r Son of $ohib Zol,inVillage Domel Teh'sil Drosh Chitrol

RESPONDENTS

CASE ETP NO.68 DA\ EU1-12-2017. U/S 142149 PPC.

PC'IJCE STA TZON TT: CHTTPAL

APPLICA rroN uNt>EP sEa.loN 497 CP P.C FOfl THE

RELEASE OF THE AC4EED /PETTTTONERS TZL L THE

FTNAL D,ECTSTON THE CA

Resryctfully 9h,".rcth;

o) Thot the occuse'd petitioner is folsely chorged olong with oJher occused by the comploinont in the obove noted l:IR.

b) Thot the accusecl/petitioner opplied for boil before lhe Addle'Session judge Chitrol who vide order doted 19- 12-2017 dismissed the boil opplicotion of the occused/petitionzr, hence this bail opplicotion is filed on the following <mongst others,

Gnounds:

HIED f-66.A1 o) Thot 'lhe occusrzd /petitioner is ,innocent and folsely

23DEC 2017

implicoted by the comploinont ofter fully consultotion llegisitir ond deliberotion

JTIDI]MENT SHEET

IN THE PESSAWARHIGH COT'RT,

MINGORA BENCII (DAR-ULQ AZL'),SWAT

(ludlcial Department) Cr.MB .A. No.592- 017

SAeed Akbgr V/S The State & I rnother |-: a

I)\ Cr.MB.. 4,. No.593-M o[20l7

\:, I

\..:' afi Ullah V/S The Srate & I another er.M B. o. 594- 017 V/azir V/S'the State & I another coNsOLIDATED

JADGMENT

Date of hearing : 11.01.2018

Petitlone r:- (Ssced A bv Mn Rah Ullah Chitrdi,lklvocate, Resoondents:- fth e State & otheil bv Mr. I Rafio Ahmad. Astt: Advocate General snd Mn a n mad niaz War rhg, A dvge ate.

MOEAMMAD IBRAHIM KEAN. J.. These crimina.l miscellaneous petitions, Cr.M. B.A.

No. 592-M of20l7 prefened by Saeed Akbar, 1t-/--. B.A. No. 593-h,I of 2017 submitted by g' Safi Ullah and tl.A. No. 594-M of 2017 by Wazir for the grant of their post arrest bail arising out of one and the same FIR bearing ATTESIgT |{rr.5 €.$ tl-'ra. lli J.rd.. i!.lL.ra lh.rlL llr r.-,,,J.,,,.1 P,rsli: ,r .,, '. , 'i Alench l'vi,,r: '...:,. 1..:. SvaL

No. 68 dated I 1.12.2017 charged under sections 436, 427, 147, 149 PPC registered at police t Station Arandu l)istrict Chitral, therefore are disposed of througsh this singled-out judlment.

2.Earlier:, for the grant of similar relief these accusedPetitioners separately prcferred their baril petitionri before the Court of leamed i Additional Sessibns Judgellzafi Zila eazi Chitral, which wL dismissed on one and the same dr'ite i.e. lg.iz.zol7.

3 As per 'Murasils' followed by lodging of the liirst Information Report on 01.12.2017 at 0il:30 hours the complainant Maaz Ullah orally reported the matter to the local pr:lice of Police Station Arandu. In view whereof an inquiry was initiated under section 157 Cr.P.C. and iuring spot inspection ir was found that at the llace of occurrence seven (7) )-- houses of thc complainant-party Y.9 were

completely bumt iown. The house-hold articles and other nutritiorral foods lying in these houses were also set ablaze. As per initial report and ArTESrgry ..d.I (S,r) n-'!r U., J{lL. l,t.l..-.a rtdtlr l(l{ 5-"""'/'t*i{o^n,o , Pes\' : '" -'i.,r,, Sr*at.

nt1'll ;-. 'r ''

T

statements of the witnesses recorded under sections 1611164 Cr.p.C. a loss of Rs. 65/66 lacs caused to the complainant-party. Thus, on the basis of above asseryations leveled by the complainant-party, the ,Dr'd FIR was lodged against all these accusedpetitioners and other co-accused.

4.Havin! heard arguments of, learned counsei for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Astt: Advocate General for the State, record with their assistance gone through.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to PLD 2017 Supreme Court 73J (Muhs mmad Tanveer V/S The State and

anothe,?", 2011 YLR ,a

Khan The and 2 ers".

il;-,.

anreoorled ludsment of this Court delivered in Cr.M B. A. No. 1213-P of2015 bv the en His Lordshlp Mr. Justice Assadullah Khan Ch I on 28.08.2OI5, 2O1O SCMR I178 ,t " Dilm V/S The 2013 1181 '

/TTTEST D

f ).:, r !) nci iEo (a.L) l-'ll Hi fu0o lt lE .d&.rr. Il r PcSlr.....,J, lr , ,t a,,lr!t 8Cllch lril)ilarirlD;i trl.iiii:J. Swal-

Aetebai Th e State". 2016 MLD 1103 $indU " Zahid Hussain Chsndio V/S The state", 2016 YLR 32 (Sindh ) " Abdul Rehman alias Sa in YtS T'he State t, 2OI7 YL 2158 (Peshsr vail u Rehman Ullah Y/S The State and sn olhern, , 2A1t P Cr.LJ 120 htih aa Dilla war V/S The State and anolher" and 2OOl,SCMR 1560 " Muham mad Amin alios lffan ond atto*er UtS'!'ne Sute".. In the light pl'these dictums of the Hon'ble superior Courts prayed for the grant of bail in favour of each of the accusedlPetitioner. Inversely, leamed counsel for the complainant duly assistei by learrred Astt: Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail in favour of the accused/?etitioners as they have been charged for setling ablaze houses of the complainant- party and thereby caused huge financial loss of g^ e Rs. 65/66 lacs to them.

6 It appears from the record that though the accused/Petitioners are directly charged in the First Information Repopt by the

ATTESTE

Iitl.D Oal n-'.t ilt, ,rttk il.r....a tl.rrb Xn . ''!e Sench i r:- C:,I J, SwAL

,l .- -i

I

complainant for commission of the alleged offence, yet a bird eye view ofthe record on the basis ol'tentative assessment would divulge that none amongst the complainant-party has witnessed this cccurrence which had been admitte[ly taken place at Sham Vela, so identifrr:ation of the real culprits still agnystery which lcould be ;resolved after recording of evidenc'e by the leamed trial Court. Though, the prosecution cited two eyewitnesses by the names of Ijaz-ul-Haq and Shah Muhammad Khan bpt their strtements were recorded under section'164 Cf.P.C with considerable delay of 5 days an the alleged occurence took place on 30.1 1.2017 trvhereas statements of these eyewihresses wen: recorded on 06.12.2017. No t explanation r{hatr,oever has been forwarded by

;_ I

f, the prosecution in this regard that why ij statements of these important prosecution witnesses were rrot recorded within time, so, this element too makes the version of prosecution doubtful at least tentatively.

ATTE* € t, [ \"1!li irrcr B cnch gp,rhr.tl' i' \ C':,trr -r.) il\l c wst. nE.lf|rl) U-i * Mr,,rrk M.rr...d ltirh Xr.. t" 'i i :t ,

M,rr : '"' i

7, Even otherwise, it is more than settled that when ultimate convictior; if any, repairs the wrong caused by mistaken relief of bail it would be rather harsh and even unjust to decline bail to an accused/Petitioner in a case entailing a sentence which may extend up to l0 years. In this regard, wisdom is derived from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Sved Khalid Hussain Shah vs. the Sntu and snother" 0011 SCMR |il.

8.Moreover, investigation in the case is complete, as the Prosecution has already prepared complete challan on 29'12'2017 and t

will shortly be submitted before the competent any Court having jr:riidiction in the matter' So, further findings on merits might prejudice the case ofeither PartY during trial' q"- d.- 9 In view of the above, all these connbcted bail petitions are allowed and

Ullatr and accused/Petitioners Saeed Akbar' Safi t

Wazir are enlarged on bail subject to fumishing bail bonds in the surh of ,1TTEs9 t,,-1',l,"'r{, Bci..,.::nchl.

P;i;:,;:::, i);' 0"'' li,r.! (!.lJ tl..'ll iL r.ri' ridt"" lU'rh Kla "r

Rs. 200,000/- (tLupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of leamed Trial Court, who shall ensure that the srreties are local, reliable and men of means.

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

Announced Dt: I t,01,2018. I g'-

JUDGE

Ce:ti?ir r -- 1 - i :-:;'--' G@PY ,,1/etrA

$ilIl( X.ra€.r) !-'r I(,l-L.li.L.-.a ttr.lL Xl_ t