2011 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.-F.I.R. No. 1 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station Katcho Bindi District Ghotki on 4-1-2010, for an alleged incident which took place on 3-1-2010. Complainant was one Amanullah. He stated that there had been a matrimonial dispute and while he and his family members were working in their fields a group of seven persons duly armed came. Present applicant Muhammad Yakoob directly fired with K.K. upon Khuda Bux of one Adam with K.K. fired on Manzoor Ahmed. The applicant retrained an absconder till 21-10-2010 when he was arrested.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is twenty two hours delay in lodging of the F.I.R. co-accused Ghulam Yasin has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 11-6-2010; co-accused Jamaluddin, Adam and Qamaruddin have been granted bail by the trial Court and therefore on the principle of consistency the applicant is entitled to facility of bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that nothing has been recovered from him.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has remained an absconder for ten months. Moreover a direct role has been attributed to him.

4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General submitted that role of co-accused Ghulam Yasin who has been granted bail by this court is materially different from role of the present applicant.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. As far as delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it is stated in the F.I.R. that after the incident dead body and injured persons were shifted to hospital and thereafter complainant came to the Police Station to lodge F.I.R. In such situation delay of twenty four hours or so in lodging of the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Co-accused Ghulam Yasin has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 11-6-2010. Ghulam Yasin was arrested during investigation but his name was shown in Column No. 2 of the challan. It was also submitted before the court that no specific role is assigned to Ghulam Yasin. It was in view of these facts that the bail was granted to Ghulam Yasin vide order dated 11-6-2010. Role of Ghulam Yasin is materially different from the role attributed to the present applicant and therefore as far as order in the case of Ghulam Yasin is concerned that cannot come to help to the present applicant.

6. As far as bail granted to Adam, Jamaluddin and Qaumruddin by the court below is concerned, the court below has primarily relied upon order of this court in Ghulam Yasin's case. When confronted with the fact that the applicant had been absconder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant did not know about lodgment of the F.I.R. Such statement does not appear to be plausible because father and brothers of the present applicant had been arrested and the incident had occurred in a small village. In my view the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail for three reasons:-- (a) Firstly the applicant has been absconder for ten months. It is settled law that an absconder does not lose his right of bail by mere fact of absconsion. However abscondence is a circumstance which can be taken into consideration by the court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction for grant of bail. Therefore an absconder though he does not lose his right of bail but the court considering bail application of an absconder has to act with a much greater degree of circumspection. (b) Secondly the applicant is clearly identified with a role of having caused two injuries by firing with K.K. (c) Thirdly on the rule of consistency Ghulam Yasin's case does not come to help to the present applicant because no specific role had been attributed to Ghulam Yasin, and a specific role has been attributed to the applicant. (d) Consequently this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-40/K Bail refused.