ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr.Bail Appln.   NO: 606  of 2007.

Date               Order with signature of judge.

1.   For orders on M.A NO.570/2008.

3.   For Hearing                 

13.5.2008.

Mr.  Awan Rehmatullah Nadeem, advocate  for the applicant.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, advocate for the State.

========

1. Dismissed as infructuous.

2.        This bail application  has been moved on behalf of  accused Abdul Karim who has been  involved in an offence U/S 302, 449, 148, 149 PPC in case FIR  NO.87/2000 of P.S B-Section Kandhkot.

     Brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.2000  the complainant Mir Ahmed had lodged FIR stating  therein that he alongwith his nephews namely Goro, Ehsan  and his brother deceased Haji Liaquat Ali used to live in the same house. On 25.12.2000 they were  sleeping in the house.  Deceased Liaquat Ali was sleeping on the cot under a shelter with the cattle    while the other inmates of the house were sleeping inside the room.  At 0015 hours they heard   the shot of K.K from the side  where Liaquat Ali was sleeping.  They heard cries of Liaquat Ali and rushed towards him.  They identified  in the light of bulb that  accused  namely Ramzan alias Gujal, present applicant accused Abdul Karim alias Deputy, Sahjoo, Ganhwar alias Mir, Abdul Ghani,  and Bashir all  Surhyani Bycaste resident of near River Indus District Shikarpur alongwith two unknown persons whom the complainant party can identify upon seeing again,  were standing at the  cot of deceased   Liaquat Ali.  Bashir and two unknown persons were armed with guns while rest of accused persons were  having K.K  in their hands.  Liaquat Ali was lying injured.  The complainant party hurled a challenge at the accused persons.  Accused Ramzan alias Gujal in return   said that  they have taken the revenge   of murder of Mst.Razan.  By saying so Ramzan had again caused  K.K burst at  Haji Liaquat Ali who succumbed to his injuries without raising any cry.

     Learned  counsel has argued that  present applicant has been shown  to be present at the  place of incident  with K.K  but no overt  act has been attributed to him.  He states  that his abscondence  from the place of  incident can not be taken as negative point against him at this stage of the case as on merits he has good case for trial.  He has relied upon the unreported judgment of this court passed in Cr.B.A. NO.S-568/2007 re: Ramzan S/O Ali Jan  and two others v. The State.  Relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

“10. In authorities reported in subsequent years 1992 P.Cr.L.J 392, PLD 2000 Quetta 72, 2000 P.Cr.L.J 1508, 1991 P.Cr.L.J 2229, 1993 P.Cr.L.J 683 and 1992 P.Cr.L.J 409 similar views have been adopted as has been laid down in the authorities of Supreme Court quoted above.  In the case reported as the State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan (1991 SCMR 322) while dealing with the ground of abscondance of accused the Honourable Supreme Court had observed as under: -

     “……  It may, however, be observed that it is not an absolute rule that a fugitive should under no circumstances be enlarged on bail  although, it may be added, abscondence does not constitute a relevant factor while examining the question of bail.”

     Learned counsel for the State  Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro,  has opposed this bail application on the ground  that case is fresh one, charge has not been framed and the accused has remained absconder and as such  is not entitled to bail.

     I have gone through the  FIR,  the impugned order  passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot and  have heard arguments of both the learned counsel.  It is admitted position that accused had not  fired a single shot  and the role assigned to him is only  his presence  at the place of incident at the time of incident.   There is  background of previous murder of Mst.Razan between the parties.  All these factors  collectively  make the present case as one of further enquiry U/S 497(ii) Cr.P.C to the effect whether provisions of section 497 Cr.P.C  will be attracted in this  case or not.   For this purpose, recording of  evidence is  required and during pendency of the trial.   I hold this case as one of further enquiry and grant bail to the accused upon his furnishing  solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/= and P.R  bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

                                  JUDGE