2009 PLP 1475 (YLR)

SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.

This bail application is directed against the order, dated 14-6-2008 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Criminal Bail Application No.74 of 2006 in Crime No. 83/2004 of P.S. New Foujdari registered for an offence under sections 302, 148, 149, 504 and 337-H(2), P.P.C. by which the bail application was dismissed. Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 9-6-2004 the F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and two other co-accused regarding murder of Zawar Mohammad Alam, as per F.I.R. co-accused Rosham and Sikander had given fatal blows to deceased while the applicants made aerial firing. That no person could be arrested therefore, challan was submitted on 29-6-2004. All the accused were placed in column No.2 subsequently, the main accused were arrested and thereafter the applicants were arrested on 17-7-2005, since then they are in custody. That the charge was framed on 10-6-2006 but no P.W. has been examined as yet. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this is a case of hardship as the applicants are behind the bars since 17-7-2005 and after framing of the charge for the last more 3 years not a single witness has been examined so far. He has further contended that no specific role has assigned to the applicants. It is a case of ineffective - firing on the part of the applicants. He has further contended that presence of prosecution witnesses at the relevant time is highly doubtful as in case of enmity sons of the deceased could have been killed when the attackers were equipped with firearm weapons but only the deceased had received the injuries by the two main accused hence the whole case is doubtful therefore, the applicants are entitled to bail. Conversely, learned State Counsel has vigorously opposed the bail application and further submitted that Mr. Jai Veshnu would argue the case for the complainant. Mr. Jai Jai Veshnu, Advocate for the complainant argued that facts have not been placed before the Court correctly as the applicants were arrested in a case under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, and have been convicted and their appeal has also been dismissed. Further the applicants after the murder of the deceased disappeared from the area and have been arrested after 13 months which shows that they were rightly connected with the above case. That the witnesses appearing in Court for the last two years but series of adjournments have been sought by the accused persons. Even the earlier bail application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and it was held that the witnesses are appearing but the applicants are avoiding to proceed the case and the same is held' in the impugned order as well. Heard both the learned counsel and the learned State Counsel and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the applicants were absconders for the last 13 months and for the last two years witnesses are knocking the door for their evidence but their wishes have not been fulfilled as yet due to conduct of the accused persons. No doubt no specific injury has been assigned to applicants, but their conduct prima facie shows the applicants are avoiding to proceed with the case. In such circumstances, the applicants have not come to this Court with clean hands, hence they are not entitled to bail at this stage therefore, the bail application is dismissed. Learned trial Court, is directed to examine three witnesses within two months on bail application in the trial Court. H.B.T./M-91/K Bail refused.