1976 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497‑Bail‑‑‑[Murder case]‑‑Petitioner solely responsible for firing shot resulting in death of deceased, absconcing for several months, and arrested after a good deal of efforts‑Interim bail granted earlier not confirmed.‑[Bail]. Raja Muhammad Anwar and M. A. Aziz for Petitioner. Sh. Nasiruddin for the State. Muhammad Saeed Ahmad for the Complainant. For the murder of Abdul Ghaffar, son of Khan Muhammad three persons, namely, Sher Zaman, Inayat Ullah and Qamar‑uz‑Zaman were involved. After the rejection of their bail by the Sessions Judge all the free accused persons moved Cr. M. No. 2326/13 of 1;972 in this Court for rant of bail but the same was rejected by my learned brother Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. on 20‑10‑72. After this, only the other two accused persons repeated their bail application both before the Sessions Judge as well as before this Court and ultimately on 12-9‑1974 they (Sher Zaman and Inayat Ullah were granted bail by this Court. It seems that those two accused persons separated their case from that of the present petitioner Qamar‑uz-zaman as according to the F.I.R. and the subsequent evidence produced store the committing Magistrate, the only fire shot which resulted in the death of the deceased was attributed to him. They therefore, did not in the present petitioner with them in their earlier bail applications. Qamar‑uz‑Zaman petitioner again moved the Sessions Judge for bail who jetted the bail application on 17‑5‑1973. He then moved Cr. M. No. 2210/B 1973 before this Court. My learned brother Aslam Riaz Hussain J. by order dated 14‑6‑1973 granted bail to tars petitioner on medical ground only. Khan Muhammad, father of Abdul Ghahar deceased, filed Cr. M. No. 3876/B of 1973 for the cancellation of bail of this petitioner. This time also this matter was placed before my learned brother Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. who called for the report from Dr. A. Rauf Yusuf, Heart Specialist, regarding the alleged heart disease of the petitioner and also report from Dr. Mahmud Ali Malik regarding dysentery of the petitioner a the receipt of these reports, it was found that the petitioner was no longer suffering from any disease and that the disease which he was earlier suffering from, had already been cured. In these circumstances anti the presence of medical certificates, his Lordship on 4‑6‑1974 cancelled the bail of the petitioner granted earlier on 14‑5‑1973. It is stated that after this, the petitioner also approached the Supreme Court but without ant success. Qamar‑uz‑Zaman petitioner has now moved the present petition for grant of bail. It was admitted to regular hearing and notice ordered to be issued on 7‑3-1975 by my learned brother Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. who also granted interim bail to the Petitioner However, subsequently by the order of Honourable the Chief Justice this case was placed before me for disposal as the petition of Khan Muhammad for cancellation of bail of co-accused Sher Zaman and Inayat Ullah was pending before me at that time. 2. It is an admitted fact that according to the prosecution version as given in the F. I. R. as well as the statements of the eye‑witnesses recorded by the committing Magistrate, Abdul Ghaffar deceased had only one fire‑arm injury which is attributed to Qamar‑uz‑Zaman petitioner. The case of the petitioner therefore, on merits is distinguishable from the other co‑accused Sher Zaman and Inayat Ullah who are not attributed any injury to the deceased. In view of this positive evidence available on the record against the petitioner, his counsel has not touched the merits. He has only tried to argue that the present petitioner is also entitled to bail tin the ground of delay. As mentioned to my order in tire connected petition (Cr. M. No. 4239JB of 1974) it was not on the ground of delay only that I had granted bail to those two accused persons. In fact, I had considered their case on merits and even the learned State counsel had admitted before me earlier tin 12‑G'‑1974 that only lalkara was attributed to Sher Zaman accused, while ineffective tiring to both Sher Zairian and Inayat Ullah accused. No other part was attributed to them so far as the death of the deceased was concerned. The cast of the present petitioner, however, ands entirely on different footing so far as the merits are concerned. From the very beginning the prosecution consistently has taken the stand that it was the present petitioner who fired a shot on the deceased which resulted in his death. It is also not denied that the deceased had only one firearm injury on his person which is attributed to the petitioner. The learned defence counsel could not explain whir Qamar‑uz‑Zaman petitioner did not join his co‑accused Sher Zaman and Inayat Ullah who had earlier moved application for bail before this Court. According to the learned counsel for the complainant vie only possible inference is that the accused person themselves the case of the present petitioner from the remaining two accused persons who were not attributed any injury to the deceased. According to him, this was a clever move try the defence to secure bail first for Sher Zaman and Inayat Ullah on the ground that the deceased had only one firearm injury on his person which was attributed by the prosecution to Qamar-uz-Zaman petitioner. After once taking up that stand, the defence cannot be allowed to wash off the effect of that stand so far as the case of the ;resent petitioner on merits is concerned. The learned defence counsel has not been able to point out any material on the record to show that Qamar'‑uz‑Zaman petitioner was not responsible and stance` on a different footing from that of the other accused persons. 3. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant that Qamar-uz-Zaman petitioner after cancellation of his bail by Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain on 20-10-1972 he remained absconder and not surrender for several months. It was after great efforts and considerable time that the police succeeded in arresting him again. The learned defence counsel has not been able to rebut this allegation. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the petitioner, therefore, misused the concession of bail granted to him earlier. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the relevant material available on the record. I feel that there appear reasonable c1roun.Ifor believing that Qamar‑uz‑Zaman petitioner has been guilty of an offence under section 3021/34, P. P. C. punishable with death or lift A imprisonment. Accordingly. I am not inclined to confirm the interim bail earlier granted to the petitioner. The result is that the earlier order of interim bail dated 7‑3‑1973 is recalled. The present petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.