' Muhammad Arshad-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No. 262, registered at Police Station Saddar Chistian, on 6-12-2000, for offences under sections 324/337-H(ii)/34, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is the while armed with .30 bore Pistol he fired at the complainant, which hit on his left knee. After occurrence the petitioner absconded and was arrested on 19-5-2004.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner himself surrendered before the learned Court and sought pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed and the petitioner was arrested; that after his arrest the petitioner has spent more than six months in Jail; and that the injury was simple in nature and was not caused on the vital part of the body. The learned counsel has relied upon the case The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan (1991 SCM R 322), wherein it was observed by the apex Court that "rule is not absolute that a fugitive from law should under no circumstances be enlarged on bail, although abscondance does constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail". The learned counsel also referred to the case of Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1875), wherein the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail on the ground that the injury caused by him was on non-vital part of the body of the victim and he had not repeated the fire.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed this application and argued that the intention of the petitioner was clear from the fact that he while armed with Pistol effectively fired on the complainant; that the petitioner remained absconder for considerable time; and that the offence squarely attracted the provisions of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C,
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that as per F.I.R. The petitioner while armed with .30 bore Pistol effectively fired on the complainant. Prima facie the act of the petitioner attracts the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. The petitioner cannot be given premium for not repeating the fire or for not being a good marksman. Admittedly the petitioner remained absconder for a considerable period and this fact constitutes a relevant factor for the purposes of bail as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It would be advantageous to refer to the case of Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 157) on that regard, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that "unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitled a person to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case". In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
Bail .