2017 PLP 151 (YLRN)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner was booked for the above offences vide FIR No.303/2008 of Police Station City Gilgit registered on the charges of 302/34/324/109/114, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 of ATA-1997.

2. The petitioner went underground and could not be arrested. The brief facts of the occurrence have been narrated in the opening part of the judgment of the learned trial Court which are re-produced for the purpose of convenience:-- "Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the SHO Police Station City, Gilgit has registered a case FIR Ex.PW-1/A on the application submitted by PW Muhammad Ishtiaq wherein it has been stated that, "stated that today on 26th December, 2008 at 09:00 am in the morning my real paternal uncle Abdul Wahid Director Agriculture, my real brother Muhammad Tayyab son of Abdul Majeed, Fazal son of Shamsher resident of Butogah Chilas, Fahad Alam son of Fazal were boarded in the Government vehicle No. X-1978 and at 09:15 am when reached at Naikoi, then Shah, Sheikh Iqbal son of Ibrahim Chowkidar, Shafqat son of Essa and Akhtar son of Shafa Ali and brother co- accused opened fire with Kalashnikov and other firearms due to section terrorism and murdered Abdul Wahid Director Agriculture, Fahad Alam son of Fazal and Mst. Yoon Zahra wife of Fazal on the spot, while as a result of firing, paternal uncle Abdul Manan son of Abdul Majeed got seriously injured. Deceased and injured have been shifted to Civil Hospital, Gilgit. Few minutes before the said vehicle, M/s. Naeemullah son of Ibrahim Shah, Muhammad Yasir son of Abdul Manan, Muhammad Rafiq son of Mayoon Khan, Muhammad Imran son of Abdul Manan who were boarded in the vehicle No. GLT-B-216 while crossing the place of occurrence have see the above named accused, it is pertinent of the said uncle from Napura to the place of occurrence seems obvious, in fact a reality."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner remained at large for about 7 years but all the co-accused attributed similar role and who also remained fugitive from law, have been allowed bail by the learned trial Court and under the law of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G, opposed the petition with the contention that the petitioner/accused remained absconders over a period of 7 years and such a long abscondence without any explanation cannot be condoned on any flimsy grounds.

5. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record with their able assistance. It is not denied that almost co-accused with similar role have been released on bail, who are attributed similar role and the law requires that all the persons placed in similar situation should be treated alike, unless and until there are some compelling reasons to do so. Some of the co-accused have already been admitted to bail by the trial Court. Rule of consistency is attracted in case of petitioner and he is also entitled for the same treatment. Abscondence though plays a decisive role in some of the cases being a corroboratory piece of evidence but it is not a blind rod to kill the right of each and every accused, who remained at large after commission of an offence. Now almost all it is settled proposition of law that some people abscond being guilty but some people abscond due to torture of police and their false implication in the case.

6. In view of above discussion the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (rupees five lac) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. JK/256/GB Bail granted.