-Bail, refusal of---Accused was hardened criminal as many F.I.Rs. were lodged against accused under different sections of law---Delay in lodging F.I.R. stood explained---

 2011 Y L R 1907

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Bail, refusal of---Delay in lodging F.I.R. stood explained---Six persons had been charged in the F.I.R., but the role of accused was different as he had been given effective role of firing at the deceased, with which deceased got injured and succumbed to his injury---Single injury was on the body of deceased which had supported the allegation against accused to the effect that he had fired at the deceased with which he got injured---Medical evidence, in circumstances, supported the prosecution case regarding the involvement of accused in the case---Contention that accused was incapable because of specific disease, was of no avail because no medical record was available on file in that connection---Accused was hardened criminal as many F.I.Rs. were lodged against accused under different sections of law---Accused being not entitled to concession of bail, his bail application was refused.

2007 PCr.LJ 1274 ref.

Abdul Latif Khan Baloch for Appellant.

Sanaullah Shamim D.A.-G. for the State.

Muhammad Ashraf Khan Marwat for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2010.

 ZARKIM KHAN VS State

2011 Y L R 1907

[Peshawar]

Before Attaullah Khan, J

ZARKIM KHAN---Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Petition No.438 of 2010, decided on 22/11/2010.

JUDGMENT

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Accused/petitioner Zarkeem Khan has moved this petition for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.166 dated 26-5-2010 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Tajori, District Lakki Marwat.

2.Arguments heard and record perused.

3.According to the F.I.R., the complainant along with the deceased was on their way to Tehsil Tajori. When they reached at the place of occurrence, they noticed the present accused-petitioner Zarkeem Khan along with five other co-accused duly armed with deadly weapons. When the deceased reached near them, one Hashim directed his co-accused to fire. On this Zarkeem Khan, accused-petitioner fired at the deceased with which he was hit and later on died while the other accused also fired but the complainant escaped.

4.Learned counsel for petitioner contended that six persons are charged for a single injury caused to the deceased, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry. He further contended that the evidence of the complainant being nephew of the deceased is interested, therefore, cannot be relied upon. According to him, the accused petitioner is a sick person and he was not capable of holding Kalashnikov.

5.On the other hand counsel for complainant submitted that it is a day light occurrence. There is ocular evidence supported by medical report. The delay is sufficiently explained. He further contended that the present accused is charged with the principal role of firing at the deceased which resulted in his death.

6.The F.I.R. reveals that report was lodged in the Police Station which is at a distance of 10 kilometers from the scene of occurrence. The time might have been consumed in transportation of dead body of the deceased. As per se the delay stands explained. It appears from the F.I.R. that six persons have been charged but the role of the present petitioner is different. He has been given effective role of firing at the deceased with which he got injured and succumbed to his injury. So he is the only accused who is charged with the effective role, therefore, the role of present accused-petitioner is different from the rest of five co-accused. The medical report is available in shape of PM report. There is a single injury on body of deceased. This support the allegation against the accusedto the effect that he fired at the deceased with which he got injured. One fire has been attributed as against single injury so in this way medical report also supports the prosecution case regarding the involvement of accused-petitioner at present. The argument that on medical ground the accused-petitioner is incapable because of Nero disease, is of no avail because no medical record is available on file in this connection. So this argument is of no avail.

7.One of the arguments of learned counsel of the petitioner is that as per opinion of the I.O.the accused-petitioner is innocent, learned counsel has sought bail on this ground also. Herelied upon a case reported in 2007 PCr.LJ 1274.

8.I have gone through this case law authored by a honourable Judge of Lahore High Court. The facts of this case are quite different from the facts of the case in hand. In the reported case, there was allegation of conspiracy by the prosecution but no such allegation is raised in the present case. In the reported case the petitioner was charged for hatching up a conspiracy but in this case, the petitioner is charged for effective role, so the principle laid down in the said case would be of no help to the accused-petitioner.

9.Learnedcounsel for respondent submitted copies of F.I.R. numbers of 126, 188, 337, 141, 182, 32 and 17. These F.I.Rs. are lodged against the present accused-petitioner under different sections of law. This shows that accused-petitioner is hardened criminal. This Court in a similar case bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 287 of 2010 decided on 5-10-2010 has refused bail to an accused-petitioner.

10.In the light of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that the accused/petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail, hence his bail petition is refused.

H.B.T./14/PBail refused.