PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Friday dismissed the bail petition of an accused charged with facilitating an alleged killer in the murder of a medical student, Asma Rani, in Kohat.

The bench of Justice Ms Mussarat Hilali observed that the accused, Shahzeb, was not entitled to the concession of bail keeping in view the evidence on record.

The prime accused, Mujahidullah, and his brother Sadiqullah, who had also been arrested in the case, have not applied for bail so far.

The high court had in April this year ordered transfer of the case to Peshawar from Kohat on an application filed by Asma’s brother Mohammad Irfan who had claimed that the accused belonged to influential family of Kohat and it was impossible for the petitioner and his family to pursue the case there.

A few days ago an anti-terrorism court had also rejected bail plea of the present petitioner, Shahzeb.

Mujahidullah, accompanied by Sadiqullah, had allegedly opened fire on Asma Rani near her residence on Jan 27 as she had turned down his marriage proposal. Following the occurrence, Mujahidullah had fled to UAE and was subsequently arrested there when the Interpol issued his red notices on the request of Pakistani government. He was shifted back to Pakistan in March.

Asma Rani had named Mujahidullah as her killer in her dying declaration.

Senior advocate Syed Abdul Fayyaz appeared for the complainant side and argued that the present petitioner was a close friend of the main accused and had facilitated him in the commission of the offence.

He argued that on information provided by the petitioner the police had recovered the motorcycle and pistol which were used in the offence.

He argued that the petitioner also helped the main accused in fleeing abroad and arranged a car for him in which he had travelled to Islamabad airport for onward journey abroad.

He contended that during the police interrogation the petitioner had admitted his role in facilitating the prime accused. He added that as the petitioner was fully aware of the murder plan and had also extended help to the main accused, he was not entitled to be set free on bail.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that his client was falsely implicated in the case and there was no concrete evidence which could prove his involvement in the commission of the offence. He added that he could not be kept behind bars merely on the basis of suspicion.

Published in Dawn, July 21st, 2018