1989 PLP 1987 (SCMR)

NAIMUDDIN, J.‑‑By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court, dated 29‑4‑1989 whereby his application for cancellation of the bail granted to Amal Sherin alias Kamal and Zahir Gul, both sons of Gul Sarwar, by the Sessions Judge, Karak, has been dismissed.

2. The reasons, which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail were: "According to the medical evidence only one wound was found on the back of deceased of this case and whereas according to the F.I.R. the deceased was fired at by present petitioner as well as his two brothers Zahir Gul and Mawiz Gul with their Kalashnikoves. All these shots have been stated in the F.I.R. to have proved effective. The medical evidence obviously contradicts the ocular version and there is no independent witness although the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the village in broad daylight."

3. In support of the application for cancellation of bail, it was urged that the respondents had absconded after the occurrence for about three months and this factor was ignored by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail to them. On this ground the High Court observed as follows:‑ "I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties very seriously. No doubt both the respondents remained fugitives from law for about three months but it is also a fact that three persons have been charged for firing at the deceased but he was hit only with one shot. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the case was of further inquiry and the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion properly which does not call for any interference by this Court."

4. In support of the present petition, the only ground urged is that the High i Court has not given due consideration to the abscondence of the respondents. On a query made by us, the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly stated that no proceedings under sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C were taken against the respondents respect of their alleged abscondence. This is by now well settled that if no such proceedings are taken, the abscondence is not of much consequence. If any pfecedents are needed, reference may be had to Liaqat Ali v. Masal Khan and I another 1980 S C M R 208 and Fazal Muhammad v. Muzaffar Hussain etc. 1981 S C M R

959. In the first case, it was observed by this Court at page 214 of the , report as follows:‑ "Next, as to the respondents' abscondence, abscondence is always a weak form of corroboratory evidence and as in the instant case, the period of abscondence was about three months only, in my opinion, it cannot furnish corroboration of Liaqat Ali's evidence." In the second case, it was observed by this Court at page 961 of the report as follows:‑ "As for the alleged abscondence of the accused, there is nothing on the record to show that they had been declared proclaimed offenders. It cannot, therefore, be said that they had `absconded' merely because they were not readily available to the police."

5. Therefore, no case is made out for interference with the exercise of discretion by the two Courts below. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./K‑111/S Petition dismissed.